Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - REPORT_NO408, October 2024

1. 86. The Committee last examined this case (submitted in 2016) at its June 2023 meeting, when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 403rd Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 348th Session (June 2023), paras 98 to 134]. 
2. 87. The complainant organization provided additional information in a communication dated 17 August 2024.
3. 88. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 8 September 2023, 26 November 2023, 15 April 2024 and 8 September 2024.
4. 89. Algeria has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 90. When it last examined the case, in June 2023, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 403rd Report, para. 134]:
   • (a) The Committee firmly urges the Government to immediately take all necessary steps to implement the court decisions on reinstatement, in particular those concerning Mr Kouafi Abdelkader and Ms Sarah Benmaiche. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken in that regard without delay.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the final court decisions handed down in the cases concerning Mr Guebli Samir and Mr Araf Imad.
   • (c) The Committee urges the Government to provide its observations on the situation of Mr Hichem Khayat, SNATEG union leader who is the subject of a judicial inquiry as a result of his trade union activities.
   • (d) The Committee expects the Government to commit to ensuring that Mr Mellal can return to the country to carry out his trade union activities in an environment free of violence, pressure or threats.
   • (e) The Committee is bound to urge the Government once again to conduct an independent inquiry to determine the circumstances that led to the administrative decision to dissolve SNATEG. Furthermore, the Committee expects the Government to review the decision to dissolve SNATEG without delay and urges it to keep the Committee informed of any action taken in that regard.
   • (f) The Committee urges the Government to send its observations concerning the allegations that the SNATEG headquarters in Algiers were closed down on 21 February 2021 by means of a simple administrative decision.
   • (g) The Committee once again urges the Government to implement its recommendations without delay in order to ensure an environment within the enterprise in which trade union rights are respected and guaranteed for all trade union organizations, and in which workers are able to join the union of their choice, elect their representatives and exercise their trade union rights without fear of reprisals and intimidation.
   • (h) The Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office if it so wishes.

B. Additional information from the complainant organization

1. 91. In a communication dated 17 August 2024, the complainant organization provided the following clarifications concerning the situation of dismissed trade unionists.
2. 92. The case of Mr Abdelkader Kouafi. Mr Kouafi was issued a ruling by the Larbaa Labour Court on 19 December 2019 cancelling his dismissal and granting him compensation for wrongful dismissal. The complainant organization submits a bailiff’s report showing the employer’s refusal to implement the section of the decision relating to the reinstatement. Moreover, the complainant organization contests the account provided by the Government whereby Mr Kouafi allegedly agreed to accept compensation for the damage suffered in lieu of his reinstatement. The complainant organization indicates that it is unaware of the decision of 18 February 2021 handed down by the Court of Larbaa to which the Government refers given that, as far as it knows, Mr Kouafi has not appealed the ruling of 19 December 2019 ordering his reinstatement.
3. 93. In addition, the complainant organization indicates that the treatment to which Mr Kouafi was subjected is extremely alarming, to the extent that, following the Committee’s examination of his case, his home was searched by the military intelligence service, and he was detained from 6 to 14 July 2023. According to the complainant organization, Mr Kouafi was subjected to ill-treatment and torture during his detention, and was accused of high treason and espionage for foreign institutions and of collaboration with terrorists residing abroad. He was also threatened with imprisonment in compliance with a three-month prison sentence for defamation handed down by the Court of Blida on 27 February 2018. The complainant organization indicates that Mr Kouafi was forced to sign a sworn statement declaring that he would no longer be an activist at the Autonomous National Union of Electricity and Gas Workers (SNATEG) or the Confederation of Productive Workers (COSYFOP) in exchange for his release. Following these events, Mr Kouafi decided to flee the country and has been a refugee in Europe since October 2023. Mr Kouafi asks nevertheless to be able to return to Algeria on condition that he is guaranteed the right to carry out his trade union activities within SNATEG in an environment free from retaliation, violence and threats of imprisonment.
4. 94. The case of Ms Sarah Benmaiche. The complainant organization indicates that Ms Benmaiche, former activist at SNATEG, was subjected to intense police pressure for years, which led her to resign from the organization. She asks the Committee to stop examining her case, which has dragged on for several years. According to the complainant organization, this situation is representative of the pressure and harassment suffered by many SNATEG activists, who have been forced to resign from the organization or even to leave the country. The complainant organization requests the Committee to condemn this practice and to preserve the right of organizations to refer matters to the ILO supervisory bodies without causing the harassment of trade union activists in Algeria.
5. 95. The case of Mr Samir Guebli. Mr Guebli received a legally binding decision from the Amechdalah Labour Court on 19 July 2020. According to the complainant organization, he decided to distance himself from SNATEG without giving official notice of his resignation. The complainant organization indicates that it is unaware of the content of the cassation appeal that he allegedly lodged and of the ruling handed down by the Court on 9 September 2021, which was mentioned during the previous examination of the case by the Committee.
6. 96. The case of Mr Araf. Dismissed on 11 June 2017, Mr Araf was given a reinstatement ruling by Biskra Labour Court on 20 May 2019. The employer appealed to the Supreme Court and won the case when the Court overturned the ruling in a decision dated 4 February 2021. The Court asked for the case to be re-examined, considering that SNATEG was not a recognized trade union with the authority to be a party to the proceedings. Biskra Labour Court re examined the case and reached the same conclusion in its ruling of 4 July 2021, confirming the inadmissibility of a case to which SNATEG was a party. Despite SNATEG applying to the Supreme Court in March 2022 to present all the documents proving its legitimacy, the Court declared the appeal inadmissible in a decision dated 8 September 2022, basing itself on the administrative decision to dissolve SNATEG. According to the complainant organization, the last ruling means that Mr Araf is not considered to be a trade union delegate and cannot contest his dismissal as if he were one with the support of SNATEG. He was therefore invited to begin the procedure again as a simple worker. According to the complainant organization, Mr Araf no longer has sufficient financial resources to continue to take legal action.
7. 97. The case of Mr Hicham Khayat. According to the complainant organization, Mr Khayat is a former member of SNATEG wrongly accused of terrorism. He resigned and ceased all contact with SNATEG following threats and blackmail by the security services.
8. 98. The complainant organization indicates that the Committee’s requests for compliance with court rulings in favour of trade unionists will remain ineffective as long as requests for enforcement at the national level end up with the Supreme Court overturning the rulings on the grounds that SNATEG is not legitimate. This position is unfortunately based on a ministerial decree of dissolution.
9. 99. The complainant organization also expresses its concern regarding the fact that the recommendations made by the Committee since 2017 in favour of its members living in Algeria increase the risks to which they are exposed and the persecution they face.
10. 100. Consequently, the complainant organization requests the Committee to intensify its pressure on the Government to encourage it to enter into negotiations with SNATEG with a view to cancelling its administrative dissolution and providing security guarantees to the President and Secretary-General of SNATEG, currently in exile, for their return to the country. Resolving this issue will in turn make it possible to resolve the problems associated with the dismissals and judicial proceedings affecting other SNATEG leaders, some of whom have been given prison sentences.
11. 101. These practices must end in order to guarantee respect for trade union rights and fundamental freedoms, as stipulated in the international legal instruments to which Algeria is party.

C. The Government’s reply

1. 102. In its communications dated 8 September 2023, 26 November 2023, 15 April 2024 and 8 September 2024, the Government provides responses to the Committee’s recommendations.
2. 103. With regard to the situation of leaders of SNATEG dismissed by various enterprises of the SONELGAZ group (hereinafter, the enterprise), the Government provides the following information.
3. 104. The case of Mr Kouafi (recommendation (a)). The Government indicates that, to follow up on a ruling dated 19 December 2019 cancelling his dismissal, his employer, the enterprise Shariket Amn el mounchaate el Takawiya (SAT), paid the compensation ordered which was 400,000 Algerian dinars (equivalent to US$2,972) for wrongful dismissal and 100,000 dinars (equivalent to US$743) for material damages suffered. Mr Kouafi once again initiated legal proceedings to request his reinstatement in December 2020, but the court rejected the request in a decision dated 18 February 2021 on the grounds that the case had already been heard and the employer had executed the court decision by compensating the complainant. The Government indicates that, furthermore, in another case Mr Kouafi was convicted for slander and sentenced to two months’ imprisonment without parole and a fine of 50,000 dinars (equivalent to US$371). He appealed but the appeal was dismissed. The Government considers that Mr Kouafi has exhausted all remedies and that his case should be closed.
4. 105. The case of Ms Sarah Benmaiche (recommendation (a)). The Government recalls the information provided previously whereby Ms Benmaiche was granted a reinstatement ruling on 4 July 2016. Her employer had partially executed that court decision by paying her compensation of 100,000 dinars (equivalent to US$743). Having noted her employer’s refusal to reinstate her despite making several attempts, Ms Benmaiche initiated legal proceedings to obtain the full execution of the reinstatement decision, claiming payment of a daily penalty by the employer. The Court of Annaba issued a ruling on 14 November 2016, ordering her reinstatement with payment of a daily penalty. On 29 November 2017, her employer complied with this ruling, paying her compensation of 90,000 dinars (equivalent to US$669). The Government considers that the case of Ms Benmaiche was executed fairly by the courts and all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. Consequently, the case of Ms Benmaiche should be closed.
5. 106. The case of Mr Guebli (recommendation (b)). The Government indicates that on 19 July 2020 the Court of Bouira issued a ruling ordering his reinstatement as well as the payment of compensation of 540,072 dinars (equivalent to US$4,012). Mr Guebli lodged a cassation appeal before the Supreme Court which, in a decision dated 9 September 2021 cancelled the ruling of 19 July 2020 and referred the case back to the Court of Bouira for review. But Mr Guebli has not yet brought the case before the court. The Government will inform the Committee of any new developments in the case, as appropriate.
6. 107. The case of Mr Araf (recommendation (b)). The Government indicates that Mr Araf was granted a ruling by the Court of Biskra on 20 May 2019 ordering his reinstatement together with compensation of 121,420 dinars (equivalent to US$902). His employer only partially executed the ruling by paying the compensation. Mr Araf lodged a cassation appeal to obtain his reinstatement. However, the Court of Biskra delivered a ruling on 4 July 2022 in favour of the employer. Consequently, the Government asks for the case of Mr Araf to be closed in view of the exhaustion of remedies.
7. 108. The case of Mr Hicham Khayat (recommendation (c)). The Government recalls that, in an investigation carried out by the counter-terrorism and crime department of the Court of Sidi M’hamed, concerning membership of a terrorist organization, it was established that some of the accused mentioned in the reports, including Mr Khayat, were in contact with an individual linked to the terrorist group, and some of them had shown support for the acts of the group in question by broadcasting the content published by their leaders being prosecuted in the Algerian justice system. On 24 October 2022, the examining magistrate handed down a partial dismissal of the case in favour of the defendants, including Mr Khayat, dropping the criminal proceedings related to terrorism and amending the charges to the offence of distributing and promoting false and malicious information undermining public order, in accordance with article 196 bis of the Criminal Code. The Government adds that Mr Khayat is also being prosecuted before the Court of Blida in another case relating to his membership of the terrorist organization Rachad. In its ruling of 8 June 2022, the court sentenced Mr Khayat to six months in prison without parole and a fine of 200,000 dinars (equivalent to US$1,486) on the grounds of insulting a public institution. Following an appeal, the Court of Blida issued a ruling dated 19 June 2023, convicting Mr Khayat for the offences of distributing publications harmful to the national interest and inciting an unarmed mob, sentencing him to two years in prison without parole and a fine of 50,000 dinars (equivalent to US$371). Mr Khayat lodged a cassation appeal before the Supreme Court, which has not yet handed down its decision. The Government indicates that it will keep the Committee informed of the decision of the Supreme Court. According to the Government, it is clear from the above that Mr Khayat’s sentences are related to acts punishable by law and are unrelated to his trade union activities. Moreover, the Government indicates that, according to his employer (SONELGAZ-Services), Mr Khayat still works at the enterprise and was promoted to senior manager on 1 May 2023 as head of the management control service at Blida Technical School. The enterprise also indicated that no contentious claims concerning Mr Khayat have been received to date and that he is still working for the enterprise.
8. 109. Furthermore, the Government reiterates its observations regarding the administrative decision to dissolve SNATEG (recommendation (e)). According to the Government, the dissolution of SNATEG was voluntary and in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 90-14 of 2 June 1990 on the exercise of the right to organize, in force at that time, and with the union’s statutes. This dissolution occurred during a congress held in general assembly of the members of the union and was recorded by a court bailiff. The Government states that as the dissolution decision was a sovereign one and was taken by the highest authority of the union concerned in accordance with its statutes, it can be neither contested nor reviewed by any entity, including the Government.
9. 110. Finally, the Government provides its observations concerning recommendation (f) relating to the allegations of closure of the SNATEG headquarters by order of the administration. The Government observes that no complaint was registered with the courts for the cancellation of an administrative decision to close the headquarters of the dissolved trade union corresponding to the address mentioned in its receipt. The Government then stresses that prevailing legislation requires that all trade union organizations must inform the competent authority of any change in the address of the union’s headquarters, accompanied by a supporting legal document. SNATEG allegedly did not send any document confirming a change of address of the union’s headquarters. Furthermore, the Government indicates that the premises in question were rented by individuals for purposes unrelated to trade union activities. According to the Government, the premises were used for the purposes of propaganda and the distribution of false information, with the intention of undermining national security and public order. The Government states that the individuals in question were sentenced for having committed illegal acts, while enjoying all legal guarantees ensuring a fair and impartial trial.

D. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 111. The Committee recalls that the present case concerns allegations that an enterprise in the energy sector has refused to allow an officially registered trade union to carry out its activities, has undertaken a campaign of harassment against the union’s officers and members and has dismissed the majority of the union’s members, and that the public authorities have refused to put an end to the violations of trade union rights and enforce court rulings in the union’s favour and have registered the trade union’s dissolution despite evidence to the contrary.
2. 112. The Committee recalls that the complaint originally referred to numerous presumed anti-union dismissals of leaders and representatives of SNATEG since 2016–17. The Committee has recalled that respect for the principles of freedom of association requires that workers should not be dismissed or refused re-employment on account of their trade union activity, and has requested the Government to provide regular reports on measures concerning the dismissed workers in this case [see 403rd Report, para. 123]. The Committee observes that, according to the reports regularly submitted by the Government, while the majority of cases of dismissals of SNATEG members and leaders seem to have been resolved by reinstatement in their posts, some cases have not yet been settled, despite the time that has elapsed. In its previous examination of the case, the Committee had asked the Government to provide information on the situation of certain trade union delegates who, according to the complainant organization, had not been reinstated, despite court or labour inspectorate decisions in their favour. The Committee notes the updates provided by the complainant organization and the Government on the situation of the following trade unionists:
   • The case of Mr Kouafi, Secretary-General of SNATEG. The Committee recalls that it had previously noted the indication by the complainant organization that Mr Kouafi, dismissed by the enterprise Shariket Amn el mounchaate el Takawiya (SAT) in 2017, was granted a legally binding decision by the Larbaa (Blida) Labour Court on 19 December 2019 cancelling his dismissal as being arbitrary because it took place during certified sick leave and because the trade union was not informed. According to the complainant organization, the court allegedly also sentenced the employer to pay compensation for wrongful dismissal of 400,000 dinars (equivalent to US$2,972) as well as compensation of 100,000 dinars (equivalent to US$743) for material damages. However, the enterprise had allegedly only implemented the financial section by paying the compensation and had refused to reinstate him. The Committee notes that, in its last reply, the Government reiterates that, while the ruling of 19 December 2019 cancelled Mr Kouafi’s dismissal, it only ordered the payment of compensation, which the employer complied with, and not his reinstatement. The Government bases itself on the decision dated 18 February 2021 handed down by the Court of Larbaa, which rejected Mr Kouafi’s appeal on the grounds that the case had already been heard, that he had been compensated and that the employer had consequently fully executed the court decision. The Government considers that Mr Kouafi has exhausted all remedies and that his case should be closed.
   • The Committee observes that the ruling of 18 February 2021 handed down by the Court of Larbaa, reports that Mr Kouafi had referred the matter to the court to request his reinstatement in the enterprise as well as the implementation of the financial section of the previous ruling. In its decision, the court finds that while Mr Kouafi’s dismissal was overturned, the decision of December 2019 must be interpreted as instructing the enterprise to fulfil the legally applicable procedures by paying compensation to Mr Kouafi. In view of these elements, the Committee will not pursue its examination of the case of Mr Kouafi as far as his dismissal is concerned. The Committee observes, however, that although it found the dismissal of Mr Kouafi to be unlawful and overturned it, the Court of Larbaa, in its decision of 19 December 2019, not only failed to order his reinstatement, but it also limited the compensation payable to six months of salary despite the fact that the complainant sought the payment of wage arrears for the 28 months since his dismissal, during which he was without resources. The Committee recalls its position whereby the Government should take the necessary measures so that trade unionists who have been dismissed for activities related to the establishment of a union are reinstated in their functions, if they so wish. If the judicial authority determines that reinstatement of workers dismissed in violation of freedom of association is not possible, measures should be taken so that they are fully compensated. The compensation should be adequate, taking into account both the damage incurred and the need to prevent the repetition of such situations in the future [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, paras 1184, 1172 and 1173]. The Committee accordingly notes the promulgation of a new Act No.23-02 of April 2023 on the exercise of trade union rights, and that this includes provisions relating to the implementation of court decisions for reinstatement in the event of anti-union dismissals. The Committee trusts that the new law in the future will ensure the effective enforcement of reinstatement orders in the case of anti-union discrimination and that compensatory measures are sufficiently dissuasive.
   • Furthermore, the Committee notes with deep concern the complainant organization’s allegations concerning the treatment to which Mr Kouafi was subjected during his detention in July 2023. According to the complainant organization, Mr Kouafi was allegedly mistreated, tortured and threatened, forcing him to sign a sworn statement declaring that he would no longer be an activist at SNATEG in exchange for his release. In this regard, the Committee must recall that in a recent case it noted with deep concern the context of intimidation hindering freedom of association that had forced Mr Kouafi into exile and urges the Government to commit to ensuring that he can return to the country to carry out his trade union activities in an environment free of violence, pressure or threats (Case No. 3434, 405th Report, March 2024, paragraphs 180 and 188).
   • The case of Ms Sarah Benmaiche, member of the Women’s Committee of SNATEG. The Committee recalls that, following a ruling dated 4 July 2016 cancelling her dismissal, her employer had stated that it was not possible to reinstate Ms Benmaiche at various sites belonging to the group or as part of the administrative staff because of her aggressive character. In its most recent communication, the Government reiterates that her employer had partially executed the court decision by paying her compensation of 100,000 dinars (equivalent to US$743). Ms Benmaiche was then granted a court decision on 14 November 2016, ordering her reinstatement with payment of a daily penalty. According to the Government and the complainant organization, her employer simply paid compensation of 90,000 dinars (equivalent to US$669) for liquidation of the penalty payment for non-reinstatement. In the Government’s view, as the court decision was executed through the payment of damages and the compensation for non-reinstatement, the case of Ms Benmaiche should be closed. The Committee regrets that, in this case, the reinstatement of a trade union leader was not executed despite two court decisions requiring it. Expressing its deep concern at this situation, the Committee trusts that the new law in the future will ensure the effective enforcement of reinstatement orders in the case of anti-union discrimination and that compensatory measures are sufficiently dissuasive. Nevertheless, the Committee notes that, in its most recent communication, the complainant organization insists on the fact that Ms Benmaiche resigned from SNATEG after having been subjected to intense police pressure and that she has asked the Committee to stop examining her case. In these circumstances, the Committee will not pursue its examination of the case of Ms Benmaiche.
   • The case of Mr Guebli, Chairperson of the central national committee. The Committee recalls that it had previously noted that Mr Guebli had received a legally binding decision from the Amechdalah Labour Court dated 16 July 2020 ordering his reinstatement after his dismissal in June 2017. According to the Government, he had appealed to the Supreme Court which, on 9 September 2021, overturned the ruling and sent the case back to the Court of Amechdalah. The Government states that it is ready to inform the Committee of all developments in this regard. Nevertheless, the Committee observes that, in its most recent communication, the complainant organization indicates that Mr Guebli had allegedly decided to distance himself from SNATEG. It is the Committee’s understanding that the complainant organization no longer intends to address Mr Guebli’s situation in the present case. In these circumstances, the Committee will not pursue its examination of the case of Mr Guebli.
   • The case of Mr Araf Chairperson of the southern national committee. The Committee had previously noted that Mr Araf, dismissed in June 2017, had received a legally binding decision of the Biskra Labour Court dated 20 May 2019 ordering his reinstatement, but that the enterprise had only partially implemented the financial section – compensation of 121,420 dinars (equivalent to US$902) – and had refused to reinstate him. According to the complainant organization, the employer appealed to the Supreme Court and had the ruling overturned in a decision dated 4 February 2021 on the grounds that SNATEG was not a recognized trade union with the authority to act in the proceedings. SNATEG allegedly applied to the Supreme Court in March 2022 to present all the documents proving its legitimacy, but the court declared the appeal inadmissible in September 2022, basing itself on the administrative decision to dissolve SNATEG. In the meantime, in a ruling dated 4 April 2022, the Court of Biskra confirmed the inadmissibility of an appeal to which SNATEG was a party. According to the complainant organization, Mr Araf was exhausted by the legal proceedings and no longer has sufficient financial resources to continue to take legal action on an individual basis. The Committee notes that the Government asks in its last reply for the case of Mr Araf to be considered closed in view of the exhaustion of legal proceedings. The Committee notes with concern that in this instance, a case of duly recognized anti-union dismissal, the ruling for which has been overturned for reasons of form, cannot be subject to judicial review due essentially to the length of the procedure, the financial costs of which can no longer be borne by the dismissed trade union leader. The Committee recalls that respect for the principles of freedom of association clearly requires that workers who consider that they have been prejudiced because of their trade union activities should have access to means of redress which are expeditious, inexpensive and fully impartial. Cases concerning anti-union discrimination should be examined rapidly, so that the necessary remedies can be really effective; an excessive delay in processing such cases constitutes a serious attack on the trade union rights of those concerned. Lastly, the Committee firmly recalls that justice delayed is justice denied [See Compilation, paras 1142, 1139 and 170.] In these circumstances, unless the complainant provides information demonstrating that Mr Araf has brought the case before the courts again, the Committee will not pursue its examination of this case.
   • The case of Mr Hicham Khayat, leader member of the SNATEG–COSYFOP trade union section of the Electricity and Gas Training Institute, and trade union representative for the wilaya [province] of Blida. The Committee recalls that it had previously urged the Government to provide information in light of the allegations of the complainant organization reporting the arrest and placing under judicial supervision of Mr Khayat on the grounds of recruiting for a terrorist group through social media, forming a terrorist group through social media, and forming a criminal association through social media that could harm national unity. The Committee notes the Government’s clarifications that Mr Khayat was granted a partial dismissal on 24 October 2022, and that the criminal proceedings related to terrorism were dropped. However, Mr Khayat was sentenced on 8 June 2022 to six months in prison without parole and a fine of 200,000 dinars (equivalent to US$1,486) for insulting a public institution. Following an appeal, on 19 June 2023 Mr Khayat was sentenced by the Court of Blida, to two years in prison without parole and a fine of 50,000 dinars (equivalent to US$371) for the offences of distributing publications harmful to the national interest and inciting an unarmed mob. According to the Government, Mr Khayat lodged a cassation appeal and the procedure is under way. The Government emphasizes that the convictions of Mr Khayat are related to acts punishable by law and are unrelated to his trade union activities. The Committee notes with concern that, according to the complainant organization, Mr Khayat is no longer a member of SNATEG and has ceased all contact with the organization following threats and blackmail by the security services. The Committee also notes the information from the Government whereby Mr Khayat was reinstated in the enterprise, where he still works and has even been promoted. In this case, the Committee observe that the rulings issued by the courts sentencing Mr Khayat – copies of which have been provided – refer to various publications and statements on social networks that have been deemed reprehensible by law. Without going into decisions handed down, the Committee wishes however to recall the importance which it places on respect for the basic civil liberties of trade unionists and employers’ organizations, including freedom of expression, as essential prerequisites to the full exercise of freedom of association. That freedom of expression which should be enjoyed by trade unions and their leaders should also be guaranteed when they wish to criticize the government’s economic and social policy. Also, the authorities’ threatening to press criminal charges in response to legitimate opinions of trade union representatives may have an intimidating and detrimental effect on the exercise of trade union rights. Lastly, the Committee considers that the full exercise of trade union rights calls for a free flow of information, opinions and ideas, and to this end workers, employers and their organizations should enjoy freedom of opinion and expression at their meetings, in their publications and in the course of other trade union activities. Nevertheless, in expressing their opinions, these organizations should respect the limits of propriety and refrain from the use of insulting language [see Compilation, paras 234, 244, 237 and 236]. The Committee trusts that the Government will ensure respect for the principles of freedom of association relating to freedom of expression recalled above.
3. 113. The Committee appreciates the updated information provided by both the complainant organization and the Government, which has enabled it to clarify the circumstances of certain SNATEG leaders who have been monitored for several years. While the clarification has allowed it to close the examination of these cases, the Committee remains, however, concerned about the fact that, more than six years after the alleged anti-union dismissals, and despite a court decision in favour of reinstatement issued several years ago, one legal procedure has still not been concluded (the case of Mr Guebli). The Committee remains particularly concerned by the fact that, in several cases confirmed by the Government, despite court decisions ordering reinstatement, the enterprises concerned have refused to implement them, confining themselves to paying the financial portion of the sanctions. In addition, the Committee is bound to reiterate its surprise that it is possible for the enterprises concerned to not implement orders from the judicial authorities without incurring any sanction. The Committee recalls that no one should be subjected to anti-union discrimination because of legitimate trade union activities and the remedy of reinstatement should be available to those who are victims of anti-union discrimination [see Compilation, para. 1163.] The Committee recalls, once again, its position whereby if it appears that the dismissals occurred as a result of involvement by the workers concerned in the activities of a union, the Government must ensure that those workers are reinstated in their jobs without loss of pay. However, if the judicial authority determines that reinstatement of workers dismissed in violation of freedom of association is not possible, measures should be taken so that they are fully compensated. The compensation should be adequate, taking into account both the damage incurred and the need to prevent the repetition of such situations in the future [see Compilation, paras 1169, 1172 and 1173].
4. 114. The Committee welcomes the fact that the new Law No. 23-02 of April 2023 on the exercise of trade union rights would appear to address a number of the issues raised in this case by ensuring that court decisions annulling dismissal for anti-union motives have the effect of reinstatement (sections 141 and 146) and establishing pecuniary compensation (sections 142 and 147). The Committee trusts that these new provisions will be applied in full so as to avoid any recurrence of impunity in the future.
5. 115. The Committee is particularly concerned about the repeated allegations whereby numerous SNATEG leaders and activists are being subjected to pressure and harassment by the authorities or to blackmail by the employer, causing them to resign from the organization or even to go into exile in some cases. The Committee is particularly concerned by the cases of harassment which led to the resignation of trade union leaders examined in the current case, who went on to cease contact with the organization or who asked the Committee not to examine their case further. The Committee firmly recalls that trade union leaders should not be subject to retaliatory measures, and in particular arrest and detention without trial, for having exercised their rights which derive from the ratification of ILO instruments on freedom of association, in this case for having lodged a complaint with the Committee on Freedom of Association [see Compilation, para. 135] and expects and urges the Government to guarantee full respect for this principle.
6. 116. On several occasions previously, the Committee has noted with concern the allegation that Mr Raouf Mellal, President of SNATEG, had been subjected to intense repression, continued anti union discrimination measures (dismissal), and systematic legal harassment (successive convictions for slander, unlawful possession of documents and identity theft), in part for having made a complaint against his country to international bodies. The relentlessness had forced Mr Mellal into exile outside the country in 2020 [see 392nd Report, para. 208; 403rd Report, para. 128]. SNATEG is calling for all charges against Mr Mellal to be dropped and states that it is ready to engage in dialogue with the Government to enable Mr Mellal to return to the country and exercise his mandate as a trade union leader. It is recalled in this regard that freedom of association can only be exercised in conditions in which fundamental rights, and in particular those relating to human life and personal safety, are fully respected and guaranteed [see Compilation, para. 82]. The Committee reiterates that it expects the Government to commit to ensuring as a matter of urgency that Mr Mellal can return to the country to carry out his trade union activities in an environment free of violence, pressure or threats.
7. 117. In its previous examinations of the matter, the Committee carried out an in-depth examination of the information provided by the complainant organization and the Government, which hold diverging opinions regarding the dissolution of SNATEG in October 2017. The Committee had requested the Government to carry out an independent investigation to determine the circumstances that led to the administrative decision approving the dissolution of SNATEG, despite evidence to the contrary presented to the authorities, which did not take them into account, and this had led the Committee to consider that the situation naturally raised questions regarding possible interference by the authorities [see 392nd Report, paras 209–212]. The Committee had thus indicated that it expected the Government to review the decision to dissolve SNATEG without delay. Nevertheless, the Committee notes with deep regret that the Government’s response is again limited to reiterating that the dissolution of SNATEG conforms to the legal provisions in force and to the union’s statutes. The Government repeats that as the dissolution decision was a sovereign one and was taken by the highest authority of the union concerned in accordance with its statutes, it can be neither contested nor reviewed by any entity, including the Government. In these circumstances, the Committee is bound to reiterate that it expects the Government to review the decision to dissolve SNATEG without delay, taking due account of the factual evidence outlined, and in accordance with the principles of freedom of association and its international obligations.
8. 118. In this regard, the Committee recalls that in another case under examination concerning Algeria [see Case No. 3434, 405th Report, March 2024, paras 184 and 188], it requested the Government to identify, in consultation with the social partners, the best way to guarantee that the penalties stipulated in the Act on the exercise of the right to organize (which punishes any trade unionists who oppose the dissolution of their unions, even verbally, and which could be used to target directly trade union members who oppose the dissolution of their unions) cannot be imposed in cases where there are diverging opinions regarding the voluntary dissolution of a trade union.
9. 119. Furthermore, the Committee had urged the Government to send its observations concerning the allegations that the SNATEG headquarters in Algiers were closed down on 21 February 2021 by means of a simple administrative decision. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that no complaint was registered with the courts for the cancellation of an administrative decision to close the headquarters of SNATEG corresponding to the address mentioned in its receipt. The Government adds that the law requires trade union organizations to inform the competent authority of any change in the address of the union’s headquarters, accompanied by a supporting legal document. The Government states that SNATEG did not send any document confirming a change of address of the union’s headquarters. Furthermore, the Government states that the premises closed by administrative decision were used for purposes not associated with trade union activities, but for activities involving propaganda and the distribution of information intended to undermine national security and public order. The Government states that the individuals in question were sentenced for having committed illegal acts, while enjoying all legal guarantees ensuring a fair and impartial trial. The Committee understands from the supporting documents provided by the complainant organization that the headquarters of SNATEG serves as the headquarters of the Confederation of Productive Workers (COSYFOP), the umbrella organization to which it is affiliated. The Committee recalls that the inviolability of trade union premises and property, including its mail, is a civil liberty which is essential to the exercise of trade union rights. The occupation or sealing of trade union premises should be subject to independent judicial review before being undertaken by the authorities in view of the significant risk that such measures may paralyse trade union activities. Searches of trade union premises should be made only following the issue of a warrant by the ordinary judicial authority where that authority is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for supposing that evidence exists on the premises material to a prosecution for a penal offence and on condition that the search be restricted to the purpose in respect of which the warrant was issued. Lastly, the access of trade union members to their union premises should not be restricted by the state authorities [see Compilation, paras 276, 283, 287 and 290]. This being the case, the Committee will pursue its examination of the issue of the headquarters in the complaint concerning COSYFOP (Case No. 3434). In the meantime, the Committee expects the Government to ensure full respect for the principles recalled above concerning the right of trade union organizations to have free access to their headquarters and to hold trade union meetings there without any interference.
10. 120. In general, the Committee wishes to express its deep concern about the present case, which is characterized by the cumulative difficulties encountered by SNATEG leaders in the exercise of their legitimate union rights. These difficulties have harmed the conducting of activities of a union and also constitute intimidation hindering the free exercise of freedom of association at the enterprise. Consequently, the Committee once again firmly urges the Government to implement its recommendations without delay in order to ensure an environment within the enterprise in which trade union rights are respected and guaranteed for all trade union organizations, and in which workers are able to join the union of their choice, elect their representatives and exercise their trade union rights without fear of reprisals and intimidation.
11. 121. The Committee draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to the legislative aspects of this case.