REPRESENTATION (article 24) - CZECH REPUBLIC - C111 - 1995

1. Trade Union Association of Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia (OS-CMS)

Closed

DISPLAYINEnglish - French - Spanish

Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation made by the Trade Union Association of Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia (OS-CMS) under article 24 of the ILO Constitution alleging non-observance by the Czech Republic of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111)

Report of the Committee set up to examine the representation made by the Trade Union Association of Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia (OS-CMS) under article 24 of the ILO Constitution alleging non-observance by the Czech Republic of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111)

Decision

The Governing Body adopted the report of the tripartite committee. Procedure closed.

Complaint Procedure

I. Introduction
1. By a letter dated 13 April 1994, the Trade Union Association of Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia (OS-CMS), referring to article 24 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organization, submitted to the International Labour Office a representation alleging non-observance by the Czech Republic of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111).
2. Convention No. 111 has been ratified by the Czech Republic and is in force for that country.
3. The provisions of the Constitution of the International Labour Organization concerning the submission of representations are as follows:
Article 24
In the event of any representation being made to the International Labour Office by an industrial association of employers or of workers that any of the Members has failed to secure in any respect the effective observance within its jurisdiction of any Convention to which it is a party, the Governing Body may communicate this representation to the government against which it is made, and may invite that government to make such statement on the subject as it may think fit.
Article 25
If no statement is received within a reasonable time from the government in question, or if the statement when received is not deemed to be satisfactory by the Governing Body, the latter shall have the right to publish the representation and the statement, if any, made in reply to it.
4. The procedure to be followed in case of representations is governed by the revised Standing Orders adopted by the Governing Body at its 121st Session in March 1980.
5. In accordance with articles 1 and 2, paragraph 1, of the Standing Orders, the Director-General acknowledged receipt of the representation and informed the Government of the Czech Republic and brought the representation before the Officers of the Governing Body.
6. At its 260th Session (June 1994), the Governing Body, on the recommendation of its Officers, decided that the representation was receivable and set up a committee to examine it, composed of Mr. D. Willers (Chairman; Government member, Germany), Miss C. Hak (Employer member, Netherlands), and Mr. R. Briesch (Worker member, France).
7. In accordance with article 4, paragraph 1(a) and (c), of the Standing Orders, the Committee decided: (a) to invite the complainant organization to communicate any additional information before 15 September 1994; and (b) to invite the Government to make a statement on the representation by 15 September 1994, it being understood that any additional information communicated by the complainant organization would be communicated to the Government.
8. The complainant organization communicated further information by a letter dated 9 September 1994, and a copy of this letter and its attachments was sent to the Government. The Committee decided to extend to 17 October 1994 the deadline for the Government's comments.
9. The Government presented its observations in a communication dated 1 November 1994.
10. The Committee met for the first time in November 1994, and for the second time in March 1995. At this second meeting, it decided to request additional information from the Government and from the complainant organization, to allow the Committee to have available all the relevant information. It requested this information in a letter dated 13 April 1995, and asked that it be received by 2 May 1995. Additional information was received from the complainant organization on 2 May 1995 and on 4 October 1995. A letter of reminder was sent to the Government on 10 May, together with the additional information received on 2 May 1995 from the complainant. In the absence of any reply from the Government, the Committee met for the third time in June 1995. It decided at that time to agree to a further extension to 15 August 1995. A reply was received from the Government on 15 September 1995.
II. Examination of the representation
1. Preliminary remarks
11. Taking account of the important political and institutional changes which took place in the Czech and Slovak Federated Republic (CSFR) before its dissolution, and those which have taken place recently in the Czech Republic following the dissolution of the CSFR and their effect on the examination of the representation, the Committee considers it useful to make the following preliminary remarks in order to facilitate understanding of the problem, before examining in detail the representation and the Government's observations.
12. The present representation follows two previous representations on essentially the same subject, which were presented in October 1991 by the Trade Union Association of Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia and in November 1991 by the Czech and Slovak Confederation of Trade Unions, both under article 24 of the Constitution, alleging the non-observance of Convention No. 111 by the Czech and Slovak Federated Republic. In November 1991, the Governing Body established a tripartite committee to examine the representations. The Committee's report, including the conclusions and recommendations contained in it, were approved by the Governing Body at its 252nd Session (February 1992). The Committee considers it useful to give a brief summary in the following paragraphs of the report of that Committee, as the present case shares much of the factual basis of the earlier representation.
13. The Committee, established in 1991 under article 24 of the Constitution, examined the compatibility of Act No. 451/1991 of 4 October 1991, known as the "Screening Act" (see annex), with the Convention with regard to the exclusion of designated categories of persons from a large range of jobs and occupations, mainly in public institutions but also in the private sector. These exclusions particularly touched persons who, in the past, had exercised functions or who had been affiliated or associated with certain groups or agencies of the former political regime over a period of more than 40 years, from 25 February 1945 to 12 November 1989.
14. The Committee was of the opinion that the exclusions established by Act No. 451/1991 could be considered justified by the inherent requirements of particular jobs, and consequently permissible by virtue of Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Convention, only in a certain number of cases. It also considered that these exclusions could not be deemed to be measures concerning activities prejudicial to the security of the State within the meaning of Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee was therefore bound to conclude that, to the extent indicated, the exclusions imposed by Act No. 451/1991 constituted discrimination on the basis of political opinion by the terms of the Convention. It also concluded that the appeals procedures under Act No. 451/1991 did not satisfy fully the provisions of the Convention.
15. The Committee felt confident that a satisfactory solution would eventually be reached since the necessary elements conducive to such a solution already existed. It recommended the Governing Body to invite the Government:
-- to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court of the CSFR at the earliest date, for a ruling on Act No. 451/1991, with due regard to the provisions of Convention No. 111;
-- to take the necessary measures, in consultation with employers' and workers' organizations, to repeal or modify Act No. 451/1991, in conformity with the requirements of the Convention;
-- to take the necessary measures to enable any person unjustly affected by the Act to obtain redress;
-- to have appropriate consultation with and recourse, if necessary, to cooperation of the International Labour Office, in carrying out these recommendations.
16. The Committee also recommended that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations follow up the examination of this matter. The Committee of Experts accordingly addressed an observation to the Government in 1992, in the framework of giving effect to the Committee's report, in which it requested it to indicate the measures taken to implement the recommendations of the Governing Body to give full effect to the Convention. The same year the CSFR was dissolved, and the Committee of Experts was not in a position to examine how these recommendations had been implemented.
17. In connection with the creation of an independent Czech State, the Interim Parliament adopted, on 16 December 1992, the new Constitution of the Czech Republic (Constitutional Act No. 1/1993) which came into force on 1 January 1993. By virtue of article 3 of this Act, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, adopted in 1991 by the former Federal Assembly of the CSFR, became an integral part of the new Constitution and, by virtue of article 10 of the same Act, the provisions of international Conventions concerning human rights and fundamental freedoms ratified by the Czech Republic are directly applicable and take precedence over national legislation. For the purposes of this representation, the Committee considers that this concerns in particular Convention No. 111, ratified by the CSFR, the obligations of which the Czech Republic, on becoming a Member of the ILO in February 1993, decided to accept formally.
18. The Committee notes that, by virtue of Constitutional Act No. 4/1993 on the measures to be taken in connection with the end of the CSFR, Act No. 415/1991, to which the 26 November 1992 decision of the CSFR Constitutional Court refers, remained in force in the Czech Republic after the dissolution of the CSFR.
2. The allegations of the complainant organization
19. In its letter of 13 April 1994, the complainant refers to the conclusions and recommendations of the ILO Governing Body Committee which examined the representations that it had presented in October 1991, and that the Czech and Slovak Confederation of Trade Unions had presented in November 1991, alleging non-observance of Convention No. 111 by the Government of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic. The OS-CMS recalls that the Committee arrived at the conclusion that the exclusions imposed by Act No. 451/1991 of 4 October 1991 (the Screening Act) constituted discrimination on the basis of political opinion by the terms of Convention No. 111 and that, in March 1992, the ILO Governing Body invited the CSFR Government to take the measures indicated in paragraph 15 above. The OS-CMS states that the Government of the CSFR has not implemented these recommendations.
20. The OS-CMS points out that in March 1992 a group of 99 deputies of the CSFR Federal Assembly lodged with the Constitutional Court a petition requesting the cancellation of Act No. 451/1991 on the ground that it was not in conformity with international human rights instruments, and in particular Convention No. 111, nor with the Constitution. The Court, in its 26 November 1992 decision, declared the unconstitutionality of provisions of the Screening Act which, according to the OS-CMS, are of minor importance, leaving untouched the essential provisions of the Act. They thus remain a constant source of discrimination based on political and ideological opinion for a large number of persons.
21. The complainant refers to Constitutional Act No. 4/1993 on the measures to be taken in connection with the end of the CSFR, and points out that the Government of the Czech Republic accepted the rights and obligations under international law, in particular the obligations arising from the Constitution of the ILO, of which it became a Member on 5 February 1993. The OS-CMS states that it is also pursuant to Act No. 4/1993 that Act No. 451/1991, as amended by the Constitutional Court decision, remains in force in the territory of the Czech Republic, and that the Government has taken no measures to end the discriminatory effects of this Act. On the contrary, it continues to restrain and limit the rights protected by the ILO Conventions, notably Convention No. 111.
22. The OS-CMS also draws attention to Act No. 216/1993 adopted by the Czech Parliament on 10 July 1993 which amends and supplements Act No. 172/1990 on Higher Schools. It has allegedly been used as the basis to suspend the permanent employment contracts of teaching staff and scientific researchers in these institutions and have them transformed into fixed-term contracts which expired on 30 September 1994. This Act was said to affect 11,400 workers in higher educational institutions. The complainant also mentions the adoption by the Parliament of the Czech Republic on 23 March 1994 of an Act repealing the provisions of the Labour Code concerning acquired rights, the right to work and to night work by women, and permanent contracts. According to the complainant, a demonstration of about 50,000 persons was organized on that day to call for the maintenance of these acquired rights and to protest against legal standards which worsen the situation of workers.
23. Finally, the complainant points out that the Screening Act is mainly applied not only to those cases listed in its section 1 (list of jobs subject to further requirements for them to be filled), but also to other cases. For example, in several communes, candidates for municipal elections must, under the Screening Act, supply a certificate attesting to their "purity". It adds that according to press reports the Ministry of the Interior is in the process of preparing a directive concerning arbitrary screening of candidates for communal elections.
24. The OS-CMS asks the Governing Body to examine whether the Czech Republic is ensuring in a satisfactory manner respect for Convention No. 111 and whether it has given effect to the recommendations on Act No. 451/1991.
25. In its letter of 9 September 1994, the complainant supplies additional information and a certain number of documents in support of its representation. The OS-CMS refers to the above-mentioned Constitutional Court decision of 26 November 1992, in particular the part where the Court states that the provisions of the Screening Act are in conformity with Article 4 of Convention No. 111 and remarks that, in its opinion, the Act contains no provision affecting individuals suspected of or engaged in a current and unregulated activity directed against the State. The OS-CMS stresses that this Act is publicly used with impunity to discredit politically persons whom it does not cover, such as the President of the Czech-Moravian Chamber of Trade Unions, Mr. Richard Falber.
26. Finally, the OS-CMS indicates that the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, in a decision of 17 May 1994, rejected the proposal put forward by a group of parliamentarians to amend the provisions of Act No. 172/1990 on Higher Schools as amended and supplemented by Act No. 216/1993. In the opinion of the Court, this Act is not contrary to Convention No. 111.
3. Documentation presented by the OS-CMS
27. In support of its representation, the OS-CMS supplied the following important documents which are summarized in the following paragraphs:
(i) the petition lodged with the Constitutional Court on 10 March 1992 by a group of 99 deputies of the CSFR Federal Assembly concerning the repeal of Act No. 451/1991;
(ii) the judgement delivered on 26 November 1992 by the Constitutional Court concerning the petition;
(iii) the request for cancellation of the provisions of Act No. 172/1990 on Higher Schools as amended and supplemented by Act No. 216/1993 of 10 July 1993, presented on 3 November 1993 to the Constitutional Court by a group of 43 deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic.
(i) Petition submitted to the CSFR Constitutional Court on 10 March 1992 by a group of 99 deputies concerning Act No. 451/1991
28. The petition submitted to the Constitutional Court in 1992 by a group of 99 deputies called for the repeal of Act No. 451/1991 which set additional requirements for access to certain jobs in state organizations and bodies. According to the petitioners, this Act was not in harmony with international human rights instruments, in particular Convention No. 111, nor the CSFR Constitution and Constitutional Act No. 23/1991 promulgating the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. In their arguments the deputies pointed out first of all that Constitutional Act No. 23/1991 promulgating the Charter prescribes, in section 1(6), that all laws and other legislative acts must be brought into conformity with the Charter by 31 December 1991. They further considered that the requirements and limitations set out in Act No. 451/1991 for carrying out certain functions in state bodies and the media, including private editors and entrepreneurs and employees in the mass media, went far beyond the limitations authorized by the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms in its article 26(2), and the general limitations provided for by law before the adoption of Act No. 451/1991. The petition summarized a series of provisions in the Act which, in the petitioners' opinion, were in contradiction with certain provisions of the above-mentioned international instruments, the Constitution and the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, such as section 21(1) of the Act which, in their opinion, was contrary to article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms concerning freedom of expression and the right to information.
29. With regard more particularly to the non-conformity of the Act with Convention No. 111, the deputies referred to Article 4 of the Convention, observing that one could not talk of discrimination against an individual who was banned from exercising an occupation by virtue of the Act, if that person was genuinely suspected of being involved in activities prejudicial to the security of the State and it could be proven that the individual had indeed been so involved. They also referred to the 1988 General Survey of the ILO Committee of Experts on Convention No. 111, pointing out that the propagation of doctrines aimed at bringing about fundamental changes to the institutions of the State was not a sufficient reason to exclude it from the protection of the Convention in the absence of recourse to violence. Moreover, the deputies considered that the changes brought indirectly by the Act to provisions of other laws, for example certain sections of the Labour Code, the Penal Code and Act No. 172/1990 on Higher Schools, were not legal by virtue of article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. The deputies criticized the discriminatory nature of the Act with regard to a very large number of citizens, notably the provisions concerning declarations of honour (section 5), independent commissions (sections 11 to 13) and administrative authorization of the exceptions (section 3(2)).
30. In conclusion, the deputies recalled the undertakings of the CSFR in the framework of various ratified international and regional instruments, as well as the obligation to respect and apply the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution of the CSFR. They proposed that the Court decide that Act No. 451/1991 had ceased to be in force retroactively from 31 December 1991.
(ii) The 26 November 1992 judgement of the CSFR Constitutional Court concerning Act No. 451/1991
31. In its 26 November 1992 decision, the Court decided that section 2(1)(c) paragraphs 2 and 3, sections 3(2) and 4(2), paragraphs 2 and 4, sections 11, 12, 13, 18(1) and 20 of Act No. 451/1991 were not in harmony with certain provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the CSFR Constitution and Act No. 326/1991 to promulgate the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Czech Republic. The Court considered that besides the above-mentioned provisions of the Act, all the other provisions were in conformity with the Constitution and ratified international instruments, including Convention No. 111. Consequently, the Court rejected the petition submitted to the CSFR Federal Assembly on 10 March 1992 by a group of parliamentarians to annul this law.
32. In its reasoning, the Court gave a long description of the situation in the country from 1948 to 1989, described by Act No. 480/1991 as a period without freedom during which the totalitarian regime, dominated by the Czechoslovak Communist Party, violated human rights and its own laws and deprived hundreds of thousands of people not only of their freedom, but also their jobs and their lives. According to the Court, that regime relied on a system of repression, the essential component of which was the State Security Service and a network of agents and secret collaborators.
33. The Court wrote that a State had not only the right but also the duty to apply and respect the principles on which it is founded, and that it should not remain idle when the leading posts at all levels of state government, of economic management, etc., are filled according to criteria set by an unacceptable totalitarian system. The Court continued that the democratic State is also obliged to eliminate privileges which were granted illegally and in a discriminatory manner based on membership of a totalitarian political party. The criteria of civic mindedness and loyalty towards democratic principles must be respected by agents of the State, in particular by its security service. The Court was convinced that the State could not be refused the right to determine the requirements for appointment to high office and other functions of decisive importance in the interests of its own security, the citizens' safety and democratic development. In this respect the Court referred to the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights concerning the nature and means of setting special requirements for access to certain jobs.
34. The Court considered that Act No. 451/1991 should not be understood as being in contradiction to Convention No. 111, in particular its Article 1, paragraph 2, which states that: "Any distinction, exclusion or preference in respect of a particular job based on the inherent requirements thereof shall not be deemed to be discrimination."
35. The Court pointed out that, according to the statistics provided by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, as of 7 September 1992, 168,928 certificates had been issued either to organizations or individuals, of which 152,504 were negative and 15,424 positive, including 4,061 positive certificates issued on the basis of section 2(1)(c) of Act No. 451/1991 concerning intentional collaborators of the State Security Service. The Court mentioned the enormous difficulties in proving intentional collaboration which had often taken place some time before the date of the elaboration of the certificates, difficulties linked to the death of witnesses, the deliberate destruction of personnel files (90 per cent of the files destroyed), non-observance of the time-limits set for decisions to be made by the Independent Commission provided for in section 13(2) of the Screening Act, and even in some cases the impossibility of arriving at an objective solution (of 2,650 requests from citizens lodged with the Commission, 300 have been dealt with and 13 persons have been found guilty). This situation had created a climate of legal insecurity in employment relations and relations between citizens and harmed the category of citizens listed in section 1 of the Act, particularly candidates for jobs or for elections.
36. In view of these circumstances, the Court concluded that section 2(1)(c) and some other provisions of the Act, notably those relating to the above-mentioned Independent Commission, were not in conformity with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and that consequently the Commission had no reason to exist. The Court also approved the objection to the Act contained in the petition of the 99 deputies according to which certain provisions of the Penal Code could not be applied by the Independent Commission since section 20 of the Act (perjury and related penalties) should have contained references to the Penal Code (section 175), in accordance with article 39 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms which states that an act can only be deemed to be a crime by a law. The same applies to penalties to punish the crime. The Court accordingly considered that section 20 of Act No. 451/1991 was also unconstitutional.
(iii) Petition presented by a group of deputies of the Czech Republic concerning the cancellation of the provisions of Act No. 172/1990 on Higher Schools as amended and supplemented by Act No. 216/1993
37. Under section 1, paragraph 8, and section 2 of Act No. 216/1993, the permanent contracts of teaching staff and scientific researchers at higher educational institutions were suspended and transformed into fixed-term contracts which expired on 30 September 1994. These contracts were to be negotiated for periods of time between two and five years. In their petition, the deputies stressed that the introduction of fixed-term contracts for a relatively large group of staff in higher schools (about 11,400 teachers and researchers) was understood as part of the unfavourable situation these workers have been placed in, leaving them without employment security and possibly leading to trouble in these establishments.
38. The petitioners recalled that the employment conditions of this category of workers were governed internationally by, in particular, UNESCO's recommendations and by Convention No. 111. Domestically they enjoyed, like other workers, the protection of the Constitution and the Labour Code except in those areas specified in a special law such as that concerning the retirement age and the appointment of professors, which were governed by Presidential Decree. The other aspects of their terms and conditions of employment are set by the general provisions of the Labour Code, in particular the length of the contract which is in principle to be negotiated for an indefinite duration (section 30(1) of the Code) or optionally for a fixed-term of a maximum of three years (section 30(2)) with a possibility of prorogation beyond that term in accordance with the criteria laid down in Order No. 223/1988 (section 30(3)). The unilateral transformation of a permanent contract into a fixed term contract is contrary to the principle of equality of all citizens before the law, enshrined in the Constitution, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and the various international human rights instruments, and to the principle of non-discrimination in employment and occupation laid down by Convention No. 111. For all these reasons the petitioners proposed that the Constitutional Court declare unconstitutional the provisions of the two above-mentioned laws as from 20 September 1993. In a decision dated 17 May 1994, the Constitutional Court rejected the petition on the grounds that these Acts did not violate Convention No. 111.
4. The Government's observations
39. In a letter from the Minister of Labour and Social Affairs dated 1 November 1994, the Government of the Czech Republic presents its observations on the representation. These observations are summarized in the following paragraphs.
40. The Government points out, first of all, that its observations concern only those matters relating to Act No. 451/1991 and leave aside the allegations that are not related to the application of Convention No. 111.
41. The Government states that the OS-CMS' allegations that the CSFR Government did not comply with the recommendations of the ILO Governing Body are not true. That Government had thoroughly examined the report of the Governing Body Committee and, in May 1992, lodged proceedings with the Constitutional Court for a declaration on the conformity of Act No. 451/1991 with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and ratified international Conventions, including Convention No. 111. At the same time the Government sent the report to the representative employers' and workers' organizations sitting on the tripartite Council of Economic and Social Agreement of the CSFR. These organizations decided that they would not make observations until the end of the proceedings concerning the Act before the Constitutional Court.
42. In its decision of 26 November 1992, the Court ruled that certain provisions of Act No. 451/1991 were null and void. The Government has supplied a copy of the judgement in support of its observations. It points out that, contrary to the allegations of the OS-CMS that the Court only annulled secondary provisions of the Act while preserving the most important ones which remain a source of discrimination on the basis of political opinion, almost a third of the Act's provisions ceased to be valid (seven of the original 23). It adds that the sections found to be in violation of Convention No. 111 are no longer in force, in particular sections 11 to 13 and section 2(2) and (3). The Government of the Czech Republic stresses that it respects the decision of the Constitutional Court of the CSFR regarding the adoption and validity of the Act.
43. The Government considers that, in principle, Act No. 451/1991 in no way aimed at encouraging discrimination against any one and that it only applies to leading executives in the state administration and state organizations whose functions are connected with implementation of government policy, including the police and the armed forces. According to the Government, the report of the Governing Body Committee which examined the earlier representation admits, in most cases, the validity of the policy set out in section 1 of the Act.
44. With regard to the obligation to obtain certificates attesting to negative screening required for the exercise of certain above-mentioned functions, the Government states that a number of political parties, movements and associations of citizens, including trade union organizations, require a certificate issued by the Ministry of the Interior concerning matters referred to in sections 2 and 21(2) of the Act. In addition, election candidates can be screened at their own request. The Government adds that, contrary to the allegations of the OS-CMS, the Ministry of the Interior has prepared no instruction regarding obligatory screening for candidates for communal elections.
45. The Government supplies statistics (more recent than those referred to in paragraph 35 above) on the issuing of screening certificates: as at 31 July 1994, 225,084 certificates had been issued in the Czech Republic of which 211,235 were negative and 13,849 positive. The positive certificates were issued on the basis of section 2(1)(a) to (c) of the Act in the following way: 4,089 under section 2(1)(a) (members of the national security forces); 4,741 under section 2(1)(b) (persons appearing in the State Security Service lists); 4,828 under section 2(1)(c) (state security collaborators); 26 under both section 2(1)(a) and (b); 27 under both section 2(1)(a) and (c); and 138 under both section 2(1)(b) and (c).
46. Regarding the right of appeal, the Government states that the persons dismissed following the issuing of a positive screening certificate have, under section 18(2) of the Act, the right to appeal to the District Court of their residence. In addition, although section 13(2) (which is no longer valid) prohibited all appeals for persons specified in section 2(1)(a) and (b), the Government points out that a superior court in Prague ruled on 11 February 1993 that such persons can nevertheless appeal to the court on the basis of article 36(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. In this respect, the Government adds that, although it has no precise statistics concerning court decisions in relation to Act No. 451/1991, it believes that only approximately 500 cases have been dealt with on the basis of appeals lodged by citizens. None of these cases involved discrimination in employment due to dismissal following the issuing of a positive screening certificate. They have all been libel suits. In about 130 cases the courts ruled in favour of the citizens concerned.
5. The Committee's conclusions
47. For the examination of the representation the Committee had at its disposal the observations of the complainant organization and the Government, the 26 November 1992 decision of the CSFR Constitutional Court and the report of the Committee set up to examine the earlier representations approved by the Governing Body in March 1992.
48. The Committee considers it useful to summarize the issues so as to place the problems in context before entering into the detailed examination of them. The allegations submitted by the OS-CMS are summarized below:
(a) According to the OS-CMS, the Government of the Czech Republic has not taken the measures recommended to the CSFR Government by the ILO Governing Body in March 1992, measures aimed at bringing Act No. 451/1991 into conformity with Convention No. 111 and at redressing the damage caused to those persons unjustly affected by the Act.
(b) The OS-CMS considers that the CSFR Constitutional Court, in its 26 November 1992 ruling on the conformity of Act No. 451/1991 with various international human rights instruments, particularly Convention No. 111, and the CSFR Constitution, declared invalid only the provisions of secondary importance and did not change the main provisions which remain a constant source of discrimination on the basis of political and ideological opinion.
(c) The OS-CMS states that the Government of the Czech Republic, a member of the ILO since February 1993, is not ensuring satisfactorily the application of Convention No. 111. It considers that the Government has adopted laws which are not in harmony with the Convention, such as Act No. 216/1993 of 10 July 1993 by virtue of which permanent contracts of teaching staff and scientific researchers in higher schools, concluded under the CSFR regime, have been suspended and transformed into fixed-term contracts to expire on 30 September 1994.
(d) The Czech Parliament also adopted on 23 March 1994 amendments to the Labour Code which, according to the OS-CMS, infringe acquired rights and the protection of women from night work. The OS-CMS has, however, supplied no details to allow an examination of this aspect of the representation relating to the above-mentioned Acts and amendments. Moreover, the Government makes no comment on this point in its observations.
49. The Government, for its part, bases its observations on the following arguments:
(a) It specifies that its observations concern only the facts relating to Act No. 451/1991 and Convention No. 111. The Government makes no comment on the OS-CMS' allegations concerning Acts mentioned in the preceding paragraphs concerning the contracts of teaching and research staff in higher schools, nor on the amendments made to the Labour Code in March 1994.
(b) The Government stresses that, in conformity with the recommendations of the ILO Governing Body, the CSFR Government swiftly brought proceedings before the CSFR Constitutional Court and consulted those employers' and workers' organizations represented on the CSFR tripartite Council for Economic and Social Agreement.
(c) With reference to the 26 November 1992 decision of the CSFR Constitutional Court, the Government disagrees with the OS-CMS' allegations and considers that the provisions of Act No. 451/1991 declared invalid were not secondary and that the provisions found by the Governing Body to be incompatible with Convention No. 111 are no longer in force.
(d) The Government stresses that the Act did not encourage discrimination and only applied to executive officers responsible for implementing government policy, and that in any case it must respect the decision of the Constitutional Court of the CSFR on the validity of Act No. 451/1991.
(e) The Government refers to the provisions of Act No. 451/1991 and states that the right of appeal to the courts is available to persons dismissed following the issuing of positive screening certificates.
Effect of Act No. 451/1991 on the application of Convention No. 111 and its obligations regarding discrimination based on political opinion
50. The Committee refers in this respect to paragraphs 52 to 59 of the above-mentioned report, approved by the Governing Body in March 1992, where the provisions of the Convention and the conclusions of the competent ILO supervisory bodies on Act No. 451/1991 are reproduced.
Assessment of Act No. 451/1991 in relation to the requirements of Convention No. 111
51. The Committee notes that the representation raises the question of whether the CSFR Government, before its dissolution in 1992, and subsequently the Government of the Czech Republic, after its creation in 1993, have satisfactorily implemented the various recommendations of the Governing Body, adopted in March 1992, concerning Act No. 451/1991.
52. In its examination of this question the Committee is guided by the conclusions contained in the report of the Committee set up to examine the representations presented in 1991 by the OS-CMS and the CS-KOS alleging non-observance of Convention No. 111 by the CSFR, the present representation being a continuation of them in a different political and legal context.
53. The Committee notes with satisfaction that, following the earlier Committee's recommendation, the CSFR Government, on 22 May 1992, lodged proceedings with the CSFR Constitutional Court for a ruling on Act No. 451/1991 in view of the provisions of Convention No. 111. It notes that in its decision of 26 November 1992 on this request the Court declared null and void a number of the Act's provisions (seven sections out of 23) since they were, according to the Court, not in conformity with international human rights instruments (including Convention No. 111), the CSFR Constitution and the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.
54. The Committee observes that the provisions of the Act declared to be null and void are the following:
-- those concerning the exclusion from certain jobs of persons who intentionally collaborated with the State Security Service (section 2(1)(c) and (2));
-- those giving the Government and the administrative authorities discretionary power to authorize exceptions in certain cases (sections 2(3) and 3(2));
-- those concerning the creation of an independent commission to verify the reasons for exclusion (section 11) and the commission's procedure (sections 12 and 13(1), (2), (4) and (5);
-- those granting a right of appeal to the District Court of their place of residence to persons wishing to challenge the facts found by the commission (section 18(1)); and
-- those concerning penalties for perjury regarding facts vital to findings (section 20).
55. The Committee recalls that the provisions of the Act found by the Court to be null and void were not in conformity with the requirements of Convention No. 111 and that their invalidation gives effect to some of the recommendations of the Governing Body concerning harmonization of the Act with Convention No. 111.
56. However, the Committee notes that the Constitutional Court did not take into consideration in its decision the numerous other considerations and opinions expressed by the earlier Committee and approved by the Governing Body in March 1992 concerning the incompatibility of other provisions of Act No. 451/1991 with Convention No. 111. In the Committee's opinion, the considerations of which the Court's decision did not take due account include the exclusions in the Act based on the inherent requirements of a particular job (Article 1, paragraph 2, of Convention No. 111), the measures which may be taken under Article 4 (activities prejudicial to the security of the State), and to a certain extent appeal procedures, although the above-mentioned November 1992 decision did improve the Act in this regard. The Committee consequently draws the Czech Government's attention to the opinions and considerations approved by the Governing Body in 1992, on its Committee's recommendation which are set out in paragraph 57 below, on the need to revise Act No. 451/1991 taking account of these opinions and considerations based on the requirements of Convention No. 111 and the conclusions of the ILO's supervisory bodies. The Committee is consequently obliged to repeat below the conclusions of the 1992 Committee which have not been followed and which, according to the available information, apparently remain relevant to the current context.
Qualifications required for a particular job
57. The 1992 Committee considered that (paragraphs 67 to 81 of its report):
67. To begin with the types of exclusions which would appear to be in line with the criteria drawn from the relevant conclusions of ILO supervisory bodies (recalled in paragraph 66 of its report), it may be considered that among the functions covered by article 1 of Act No. 451/1991, those which entail particularly strict requirements of state security and of confidentiality may reasonably be subject to exclusions based on political opinion, given especially the context of recent and current events of history in Czechoslovakia. The exclusions imposed should nevertheless be in proportion to the inherent requirements of the particular jobs in question.
68. Accordingly, the exclusions established by Act No. 451/1991 may be considered on the whole to be justified as regards the military functions at the ranks of colonel and general in the army and Ministry of Defence and military attachés, the Federal Security Intelligence Service, the Palace Guard Police Force and most functions in the Federal Ministry of the Interior (article 1, paragraph 1(b), (c), and paragraph 2; article 3 of the Act). These exclusions may also be deemed acceptable as regards the Federal Police Force, although their application in this public service should be in proportion and be limited to particular functions, as in the case of the military functions mentioned above, and not as a blanket requirement for all functions in the service.
69. Regarding the functions in the Offices of the Federal President and of the federal and national assemblies and the Offices of the Constitutional and Supreme Courts covered by article 1, paragraph 1(d), of the Act, each ground for exclusion should be examined to ensure that it is in proportion to the requirements of security and confidentiality inherent in each particular job in the categories of functions concerned.
70. As regards functions in the Presidium of Academies of Science, covered by article 1, paragraph 1(d), the principle of proportionality should be strictly observed in applying any of the exclusions laid down in the Act in relation to the inherent requirements of these functions which would appear in most cases to be of a different nature than the requirements of the other categories of functions dealt with above.
71. Regarding functions covered by article 1, paragraph 1(f) and paragraph 3, of the Act, consideration of political opinions would appear to be justified for the exercise of functions of heads and leading executives in state industrial, commercial and financial undertakings and institutions when the functions in question involve the implementation of policies in important and sensitive fields, especially in the present circumstances of the country.
72. The Committee is not clear as to the nature and requirements of the functions of elected academic officers and of functions subject to approval by the academic senate in higher schools; nor is it clear as to the fields of learning covered by such schools. As a general rule, the Committee is of the view that consideration of political opinion is justified only where the opinions are in conflict with the obligations normally attached to teaching duties (e.g. objectivity and respect for the truth), or are in conflict with or prejudice the aims and principles professed by the schools to which the officers belong (e.g. the case of an institution for religious studies.
73. As regards functions in other "state organizations" that may be covered by the same provisions of article 1, paragraph 1(f), of the Act, any exclusions should only be applied in strict observance of the relevant criteria defined by the ILO supervisory bodies in accordance with the requirements of Convention No. 111.
74. The exclusions concerning functions in the state administration in general (article 1, paragraph 1(a), of the Act) are too extensive to be considered inherent requirements of particular jobs and such exclusions should be limited to senior or sensitive posts involving the implementation of government policies or confidentiality requirements.
75. The same restrictive approach should be followed regarding any exclusions for political reasons from the exercise of functions in the state media institutions (article 1, paragraph 1(e), of the Act).
76. As regards the judicial and legal professions (article 1, paragraph 4 of the Act), exclusions should be admissible under the Act only in cases where the past political record of the persons concerned is likely or is found to reflect upon their moral integrity and repute, or to endanger the confidentiality and impartiality of prosecution and adjudication and perhaps, the legal reliability of state notaries.
77. Finally, as regards the "conditions of reliability" required for practising certain concession-based trades (article 1, paragraph 5, of the Act referring to Appendix 3 of Act No. 455/1991), any exclusions such as established under article 2 of the Act should only apply to those trades listed in Act No. 455/1991, Appendix 3 (for example, in the arms and ammunition or explosive businesses, or in work on radiation sources or medical equipment) where requirements of public security and safety may be deemed to be put in jeopardy by the past political record of the persons concerned and not to trades, also listed under Act No. 455/1991, where such requirements are not involved (for example, auctioneers and antiques business).
Measures regarding activities prejudicial to the security of the State
78. In accordance with the substantive criteria elicited by ILO supervisory bodies (see paragraph 59 above), measures regarding activities prejudicial to the security of the State under Article 4 of the Convention should be directed at individual activities -- proven or justifiably suspected -- and not be motivated by membership of a particular group or community or by expression or demonstration of opinions opposed to established political principles and institutions without the use of advocacy of violent methods to change them. Such measures should be sufficiently well defined and delimited and should be applied in the light of the bearing of the activities in question on the performance of the job, task or occupation by the persons concerned.
79. By applying the above criteria to the exclusions laid down in Act No. 451/1991, the Committee has reached the view that these exclusions, which cover a very broad range of functions and are based on the past record -- however reprehensible -- of persons for their association or collaboration with the former political regime, cannot be regarded ipso facto as measures within the meaning of Article 4 of the Convention. Such measures should be applied only to persons who are actually engaged in or justifiably suspected of activities prejudicial to the security of the State, the definition of which must be consonant with the criteria recalled above (for example, collaboration with foreign intelligence or espionage service, as stipulated in article 4, paragraph 4, of the Act).
Duration of exclusion measures
80. The Committee takes due note of the fact that the exclusions laid down by Act No. 451/1991 will cease to apply after 31 December 1996 when the Act itself will lapse. In the view of the Committee, the duration of the exclusions would not have any decisive impact on the damages in respect of employment and occupation for the persons affected. The effects of such exclusions, whether or not justified by the terms of Convention No. 111, are likely to last long after their enforcement and perhaps permanently. The duration of the exclusions consequently does not constitute a significant element in the assessment of their conformity with the requirements of Convention No. 111.
General conclusions on exclusions
81. The preceding considerations have shown that in respect of Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the exclusions established by Act No. 451/1991 may be deemed inherent requirements of particular jobs only in a certain number of cases as referred to in paragraphs 67 to 77 above. These exclusions as such cannot be regarded as measures concerning activities prejudicial to the security of the State within the meaning of Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee is bound therefore to conclude that, to the extent indicated, the exclusions imposed by Act No. 451/1991 constitute discrimination on the basis of political opinion by the terms of Convention No. 111.
Appeal procedures
58. The Committee notes with satisfaction that, following the conclusions of the 1992 Committee concerning appeal procedures, the CSFR Constitutional Court declared null and void a number of provisions of Act No. 451/1991 (sections 11, 12, 13(1), (2), (4) and (5), 18 and 20) concerning the composition, operation and appeal procedures of the independent commission, created with the Federal Ministry of the Interior to verify the facts mentioned in section 2(1)(c) to (h) of the Act relating to the grounds for exclusions.
59. However, the Committee notes that other provisions of the Act concerning appeal procedures incompatible with Convention No. 111 remain in force. It is therefore obliged to recall the pertinent observations of the 1992 Committee (paragraphs 87 to 91 of its report):
87. The Committee further notes that under article 13 of the Act, while affidavits submitted by the persons concerned regarding their own situation may be queried before the commission by other persons and organizations, the certificates issued by the Federal Ministry of the Interior may only be contested by the persons concerned in the case specified in article 2, paragraph 1(c) of the Act (conscious collaborator of the State Security). It follows therefore that certificates concerning the cases specified in article 2, paragraph 1(a) and (b) of the Act (membership of National Security Corps and service in the State Security) and perhaps, although the Act is not clear, also the case specified in article 2, paragraph 1(e) (Official of the Communist Party in the political guidance sector of the National Security Corps) are not liable to appeal by the persons concerned.
88. The Committee considers that the absence of a right to appeal in the cases mentioned above is in breach of the relevant requirements of the Convention. It recalls that the complainant organizations have stressed the arbitrariness of these certificates which put irrefutable reliance on records kept by the State Security without any concern for circumstances of particular cases, including those of persons subject to threat and pressure. President Vaclav Havel himself gave attention to this question and suggested that a revised law should grant to the persons concerned the right of appeal to the court concerning certificates issued to them.
89. Finally, the Committee recalls that, as pointed out by the ILO supervisory bodies, the right of appeal cannot be considered a guarantee unless the substantive conditions have been met. Consequently, appropriate appeals procedures can only contribute to the observance of the Convention in so far as the provisions for protection against discrimination are adequate or as the appellate body, for example a constitutional court, is empowered to overrule provisions that are in breach of such protection.
90. The Committee notes that under article 13, paragraph 3 of the Act, a person subject to any exclusion specified in article 2, paragraph 1(d) to (h) (members and officials of organs of the political and ideological apparatus of the former regime) may produce proof that after having ceased to be in the position giving ground for such exclusion, that person had been penalized for acts specified by Act No. 119/1990 concerning judicial rehabilitation and had been rehabilitated in accordance with that Act, and may obtain a statement of the commission of review mentioned above that the exclusion has been lifted.
91. The Committee notes that the acts for which persons who had been penalized may be rehabilitated under Act No. 119/1990 consist mostly in offences based on opinions or other manifestations of opposition to the State and established political and ideological principles. It considers this procedure for the lifting of exclusions to be consistent with the Convention's requirements regarding protection against discrimination on the basis of political opinion, without detracting in any way from the need to ensure also consistency with these requirements of the exclusions established by Act No. 451/1991.
60. Recalling the above considerations and conclusions approved by the Governing Body in 1992 on the recommendation of its Committee, and transmitted to the Government of the former CSFR, the Committee trusts that the Government of the Czech Republic will take the necessary measures so that, in the framework of the revision of the texts adopted before the dissolution of the CSFR and temporarily remaining in force on Czech territory, Act No. 451/1991 will be brought into conformity with the new Constitution, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and Convention No. 111.
61. The Committee notes in this connection that in a further letter of 4 October 1995, the complainant informed the Office of the adoption by the Parliament on 27 September 1995 of an Act extending the validity of Act No. 451/1991 until 31 December 2000, which was initially due to expire on 31 December 1996.
62. During its March 1995 meeting, the Committee noted that, according to the statistics supplied by the Government, as of 31 July 1994, 13,849 positive certificates had been delivered in the Czech Republic under Act No. 451/1991. It also noted that the persons dismissed from their jobs following the issuing of such certificates may, in accordance with section 18, paragraph 2, of the Act, appeal this decision to the district court where they live. The Committee asked in its letter dated 13 April 1995, for further information on the juridical basis on which these courts have examined any appeals made by workers who have been dismissed following the delivery of such a certificate. It also requested information on the measures taken to reinstate in their jobs, or to provide adequate compensation to, workers who are found under such appeals to have been the victims of unjustified dismissals.
63. In its response, communicated by letter of 15 September 1995, the Government indicated that the great majority of those persons who appealed to the competent district court did so on the basis of section 18, paragraph 1, of Act No. 451/1991, solely to protect their honour. Furthermore, in the Government's opinion, judicial proceedings based on this provision are conducted as proceedings in matters in respect of protection of personality, in accordance with sections 11 and 13 of the Civil Code, and section 9, paragraph 2(a), of the Code of Civil Procedure. Besides, persons to whom a screening certificate has been delivered on the basis of unfounded data contained in the files of the former State Security can, in addition to the above-mentioned procedure, file an action under section 80(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, to determine that the wrongful entry in the files of the former State Security caused undue interference into their privacy. On the basis of such action the persons concerned may claim compensation in money terms for non-material prejudice caused. In cases in which workers have been dismissed following the delivery of a positive screening certificate, and have obtained a judicial decision that the entry concerning them in the files of the former State Security was not well founded, the act of dismissal becomes void and the employer is required to re-employ them and to provide wage compensation, in accordance with section 61, paragraph 1, and section 242, paragraph 1(a), of the Labour Code.
64. In response to the request for information on measures taken to reinstate in their jobs or to provide adequate compensation to workers who are found to have been the victims of unjustified dismissals, the Government indicated that so far, four district courts in the Czech Republic have dealt with only nine cases concerning the invalidity of the termination of employment under section 18, paragraph 2, of Act No. 451/1991. In five cases the courts decided in favour of the citizens concerned, and in four cases the proceedings were discontinued for procedural reasons. In a certain number of cases appeals have been made to the high courts.
Other aspects of the representation
Teaching and scientific staff in higher school establishments
65. The Committee also noted that, according to the information supplied by the OS-CMS, under Act No. 216/1993 of 10 July 1993 which amends and supplements Act No. 172/1990 concerning higher education, the employment contracts of about 11,400 teachers and researchers in these establishments which had been concluded without limit of time, were suspended and transformed into fixed-term contracts expiring on 30 September 1994. The Committee noted from the Government's reply in its letter of 1 November 1994 to the allegations made by the OS-CMS, that it had decided not to supply information in this regard. The Committee nevertheless requested the Government, in its letter of 13 April 1995, to provide information on the situation of these teachers and researchers after 30 September 1994, when their contracts expired. It has also asked for further information on the basis of selection of the workers whose contracts were transformed, as well as an indication of the usual situation -- both now and in the past -- relating to the employment contracts of teaching and research personnel in higher education. The Committee requested the Government to send this information no later than 2 May 1995 in order to allow the Governing Body again to examine this representation during its 263rd Session (June 1995).
66. In its response of 15 September 1995, the Government stated that it continues to believe that the allegations made by the OS-CMS concerning teachers and researchers in the establishments of higher education in connection with Act No. 216/1993, are not relevant to the application of Convention No. 111. Furthermore, in the Government's opinion, these allegations do not comply with the formal requirements in respect of representations, in particular the condition under article 2(2)(f) of the Standing Orders concerning the procedure for examination of representations under articles 24 and 25 of the ILO Constitution. However, the Government indicated that information requested will be communicated this year in its regular report due under article 22 of the ILO Constitution for examination by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.
67. The Committee also requested the complainant organization, in a letter of 13 April 1995, to provide further information, no later than 2 May 1995, which would allow it to evaluate Act No. 216/1993, which amends and supplements Act No. 172/1990 concerning higher education, in relation to the requirements of Convention No. 111, and in particular any indications which would allow it to conclude whether the workers affected by these laws were chosen on the basis of criteria covered by Article 1 of the Convention. It also asked for information on the situation of these teachers and researchers after 30 September 1994, when their contracts expired. In its letter of 2 May 1995, the complainant organization stated that it did not have access to official data on teachers and researchers in higher education whose rights had been violated by Act No. 216 of 15 July 1993. It again drew the Committee's attention to the request submitted by 43 Czech parliamentarians asking for the annulment of this law, to which it had already referred in its previous comments, and on the decision of the Constitutional Court issued on 17 May 1994 which rejected this request. The Court considered that Act No. 216/1993 is not in contradiction to the Constitution and the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Czech Republic, nor with relevant international instruments, in particular ILO Convention No. 122 on employment policy and No. 111 on discrimination in employment and occupation.
68. The Committee considers that it does not have sufficient information to evaluate these Acts in relation to the requirements of Convention No. 111. In particular, it notes that neither the petition submitted to the Court by 43 deputies asking for Act No. 172/1990 to be overturned, nor information supplied by the OS-CMS on 2 May 1995, contains any allegations that the teachers affected by these Acts were selected on any of the grounds which are listed in Article 1 of the Convention. At the same time, the Committee recalls that the 1991 representation concerned teaching personnel, inter alia, covered by Act No. 451/1991, and suggests that further information be submitted to the Committee of Experts in this regard for it to examine the situation more fully.
69. The Committee considers that, for the reasons set out in the above paragraphs, not all of the 1992 recommendations of the ILO Governing Body based on the conclusions of its Committee set up to examine the representations of the complainant organizations have been implemented satisfactorily by the Government of the Czech Republic which, by virtue of Act No. 4/1993, extended the validity of Act No. 451/1991 to the Czech Republic after the dissolution of the CSFR.
70. In concluding its examination of the representation, the Committee is firmly convinced that the small measure of progress made in applying the recommendations of the Governing Body must be strengthened and extended so that the unjustified exclusions provided for in this Act cease to be applied and that redress be available to the victims of the discriminatory effects of this legislation. It deeply regrets that the Act has been extended until 31 December 2000, without taking account of the comments of the Governing Body that examined the earlier representation.
71. The Committee bases this conviction on the changes in the political situation in the Czech Republic, manifested in the adoption in December 1992 of a new Constitution which provides respect of the rights and freedoms of all citizens set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and ratified international standards, which form an integral part of the Constitution.
72. The Committee trusts that, in the framework of the definitive installation of democratic institutions in the new Czech Republic and the laws by which they shall be governed, the Government will take the necessary measures to repeal or amend all the legislative provisions and administrative practices which are incompatible with the requirements of Convention No. 111, in particular the provisions of Act No. 451/1991 concerning exclusions based on political opinion. The Committee also hopes that the Government will not fail to provide adequate compensation to those workers who were victims of discriminatory treatment within the meaning of the Convention.
73. The recommendations that follow are made by the Committee in the light of the above considerations.
III. The Committee's recommendations
74. The Committee recommends that the Governing Body:
(a) approve the present report and in particular the conclusions and recommendations made in it;
(b) invite the Government of the Czech Republic:
(i) to repeal or modify any legal provisions which are incompatible with Convention No. 111, in particular some of the provisions of Act No. 451/1991 which are still in force;
(ii) to take the necessary measures, including appropriate appeal procedures, to enable workers who suffered discriminatory treatment in the meaning of Convention No. 111 to obtain adequate redress, including reinsertion in their jobs in appropriate cases, whatever their sector of activity;
(iii) to try to obtain the cooperation of employers' and workers' organizations and other appropriate bodies, in accordance with Article 3(a) of Convention No. 111, for the adoption and implementation of the measures recommended above and, more generally, to encourage the acceptance and application of a national policy to eliminate all discrimination in the meaning of the Convention;
(iv) to have appropriate consultation with and recourse, if necessary, to the cooperation of the International Labour Office, in carrying out the above recommendations;
(v) to provide complete information in the reports due, under article 22 of the ILO Constitution, on the measures taken to give effect to the above recommendations, in order to enable the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to follow up the situation;
(c) to declare closed the procedure initiated as a result of the representation made by the OS-CMS.