Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1998, Publication: 86th ILC session (1998)

A Government representative emphasized that the Republic of Croatia had, since becoming a Member of the ILO in 1992, ratified 56 Conventions, including all the Conventions concerning fundamental workers' rights. It had regularly submitted its reports on the application of all ratified Conventions and, even during the Homeland War, had never neglected any international obligation arising out of the ratification of ILO Conventions. These obligations were being taken into account in the process of legislative reform which Croatia had undertaken and which was bringing its legislation into compliance with the Constitution, in which Croatia was proclaimed as a State based on the postulates of social justice. Moreover, even in the circumstances of war, Croatia had managed to ensure the undisturbed functioning of the social security system in accordance with the obligations of the Convention. Croatia had assumed obligations under all the Parts of the Convention, except the Part dealing with family benefits. Even so, it had developed legislation and provided family allowances. In this context she expressed surprise to have been placed on the list of cases regarding the application of the Convention, particularly since her country ensured far broader protection and a higher level of rights than those prescribed by the Convention. Moreover, the comments made by the Committee of Experts concerned the first detailed report on the application of the Convention. But, the Committee of Experts had not even examined some of the Government's later replies concerning communications made by trade unions. However, in view of the importance of the work of the Conference Committee, she was prepared to address the comments made by the Committee of Experts on the application of the Convention by her country.

In the first place, she emphasized that early in 1998 a comprehensive reform of social legislation had been launched in the country. Its implementation had been aggravated by several factors, including war, the large number of refugees, the transition from a planned to a market economy, with the attendant rapid rise in unemployment, the unfavourable ratio of employees to pensioners and the considerable problems experienced in the collection of resources by the Health Insurance Fund and the Pension Insurance Fund. With regard to section 59(2) of the Health Insurance Act, 1993, on which the Committee of Experts had commented following the observations submitted by the Union of Autonomous Trade Unions of Croatia (SSSH), she provided the Conference Committee with additional information on the national health insurance system. Article 58 of the national Constitution guaranteed every citizen the right to health protection. In application of this provision, the Health Protection Act and the Health Insurance Act ensured that all citizens were covered by a public and compulsory health insurance scheme. All insured persons were therefore entitled to health care, cash benefits and assistance, including primary, specialist and hospital care. Expenditure on health care in the country amounted to 7.6 per cent of GDP. Compulsory health insurance was administered by the Croatian Institute for Health Insurance, which collected the contributions, which were paid in different ways. For employees, the contributions were made by both employees and employers themselves. The contributions of employers were imposed on the wages of all those employed by them, while employee contributions were deducted from their wages. The obligation to make the payment of the employees' contributions lay with the employer, who was defined as a "contribution payer". Self-employed persons and equivalent groups were obliged to pay the contributions themselves. In the case of unemployed persons and vulnerable groups, as well as specially protected groups, the costs of health care were financed directly by the state budget.

In order to ensure the collection of contributions, the Croatian Institute for Health Insurance was authorized and obliged to audit the books of employers to ascertain that the calculations and payments had been made correctly. The Institute monitored the regular collection of contributions for health insurance. Section 59(2) of the Act specified that, for a contribution payer who failed to pay contributions, the right to health care financed by the Institute would be restricted to emergency aid. She specified that this provision meant that the right to health care could only be restricted for persons who were obliged to pay contributions themselves. It did not therefore constitute an authorization to restrict the right of employees to health care. The Institute maintained a list of persons who were obliged to pay contributions themselves and of those whose right to health care was restricted for the non-payment of contributions. It also maintained a list of legal and physical persons whose payments of contributions for employees were also overdue for more than three months. The existence of the two lists was misleading, since it might wrongly be assumed that section 59(2) also referred to the second list.

The problem of the collection of contributions in the country had worsened in 1995 and 1996, particularly as a result of the general economic and social situation affected by the war and transition. Every month, employers who employed some 100,000 workers were faced with the problem of the payment of wages, including the payment of health and pension insurance contributions. The Institute endeavoured to resolve such problems by making special arrangements with employers for the deferral of contributions. Although the Institute had wide powers for the forced collection of contributions, including the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings, it did not avail itself of these powers, which would ultimately lead to redundancies. In 1996, the Government had taken action by requesting the Institute to keep records of contribution arrears and not to charge interest on arrears that were postponed. Within its programme for the rehabilitation and restructuring of enterprises in difficulties, but which had good prospects of recovery, the Government had transferred insurance claims to the state budget. Therefore, the Government provided resources for health and pension insurance of employees in these enterprises. In this way, during the period June 1996 to September 1997, some DM35 million had been contributed to health insurance by the State.

From the above information, it was clear that the SSSH's allegations of a massive denial of the right of employees to health care was not correct. The Government was aware that the problems of the financing of health care could only be resolved by the recovery of the economy, by a reduction in unemployment and a reform of the health care and health insurance systems. A commission had therefore been established for the reform of these systems, in which the representatives of workers and employers would be involved. The Government would also welcome assistance from the ILO in this respect. On the same issue, she added that the Constitutional Court had not yet made its decision. Moreover, a reply would be made to the question raised by the Member of Parliament referred to in the observation of the Committee of Experts in the detailed report due to be submitted in 1998 on the application of the Convention.

With regard to the communication of the Federation of Retired Military Persons' Clubs, which was affiliated to the Pensioners Trade Union of Croatia, the Government had also submitted a written reply to the following effect. In the first place, it should be noted that the Government had taken over retired military persons and insured persons of the ex-federal army and that it paid them pensions in accordance with the existing legislation. The complaint in this respect which was before the Constitutional Court concerned the rate of the pensions taken over in December 1991. The retirement and disability insurance of members of the ex-Yugoslav national army had previously been handled by a special fund which had its headquarters in Belgrade. The former legislation concerning the insurance of these persons had been applied in the Republic of Croatia as from 1991. As a result, the retirement pensions of these persons who were resident in the country, whose pensions had been stopped by the fund in Belgrade, and who had not been in breach of any of the criminal laws of Croatia, were paid to the amount of 63.22 per cent of their pensions as of December 1991. All the benefits recognized earlier for these pensions had been retained and they were adjusted in line with the pay rises of employees in the country. Since 1997, such adjustments had been made according to the rise in the cost of living, in the same way as for the pensions of all other categories of retired persons. As a result of these various measures, the pensions in question were now in real terms some 73 per cent of what they had been in December 1991. In conclusion, she hoped that the members of the Committee would agree that her Government was making every effort to fulfil all the provisions of the Convention.

The Employers' members pointed out that the observation of the Committee of Experts concerned two distinct points. The second point concerned allegations to which the Government has not had the opportunity to reply to in writing. In accordance with its custom of not commenting on oral information only, this Committee should not discuss it before examination of the Government's next report by the Committee of Experts. The first point was not clear at all. It originated in the comments of a trade union which indicated that in the case of an employer failing to pay the insurance contribution in the name of the employee, the employee's rights would be reduced to the right to emergency medical aid only in accordance with section 59 of the Health Insurance Act. The Government indicated that, in such cases, by virtue of the amendments to the Health Insurance Act, the Health Insurance Institute would be empowered to ensure that arrears in insurance contributions would be collected by it. As the Government had not indicated that this was being done in practice, the Committee of Experts had requested the Government to communicate the texts of the said amendments as well as information regarding its application in practice. According to the trade union, section 59 continued to be applied without any change, thus making the resulting reduction of health care to the right to emergency medical aid only, a generalized phenomena. The Government maintained that the reduction concerned the provision of urgent medical treatment and not of the emergency aid, and that the reduction did not apply to children under 18 years of age and pregnant women. The Employers' members considered that this distinction was not clear and that the Government should respond to the earlier request of the Committee of Experts that the relevant texts be furnished. In any event, the Convention required that the care to which persons protected were entitled, should extend to medical care of a preventive or curative nature and not be limited to emergency aid. Health care protection was currently faced with changes in many countries characterized by the search for a new balance between contributions coming from compulsory or voluntary schemes. The question remained in this case whether the protected persons rather than their employers were responsible for their contributions. The Government failed to indicate how this principle was applied in practice, and how many persons were receiving only reduced care due to the failure to pay by the employer. In order to have a dialogue with the supervisory bodies, the Government should reply to these requests and questions by providing information on the actual practice and should supply the said texts, judgements or decisions. They considered it was only on the basis of such information that the Committee of Experts could then assess the situation from the viewpoint of obligations under the Convention, and, if need be, for this Committee to examine the question again in the future.

The Workers' members thanked the Government representative for her explanations. This was the first time that the Committee discussed the application of the Convention by this country, but the Committee of Experts had previously made observations in 1995, 1996 and 1997. The Government representative should be reassured concerning the working methods of the Committee in the case of her country. The Committee had always made a point of discussing recent developments in the application of the so-called "technical" Conventions on the basis of the analysis of the Committee of Experts. The Workers' members were particularly interested by standards in the field of social security both because they formed part of the struggle against poverty and social exclusion and because they gave equality of treatment a concrete meaning. The protection against health risks was particularly significant in this respect. The Union of Autonomous Trade Unions of Croatia indicated that many workers were denied health protection on the basis of section 59 of the 1993 law on health insurance. These workers had only limited coverage for emergency medical treatment when the employer failed to pay the contribution. Thus, it was the worker who suffered the serious consequences of the employer's failure to fulfil his obligations. It seemed that this practice was on the increase, although insurance contributions were made through payroll deduction and thus had been paid by the employee. The Committee of Experts noted that the Government did not contest that the regime of limited coverage was generally the case, in practice, and the regulatory and legislative changes in 1996 did not appear to have solved the problem. It confirmed that it was contrary to Article 69 of the Convention to exclude a worker from the normal regime of health care because the employer has failed to pay the contributions on his behalf. Moreover, limiting health care benefits to emergency services was contrary to Articles 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Convention. The Government has indicated the categories of persons to whom these limitations are not applicable: persons under 18 years of age and pregnant women. This minimum regime was not compatible with the Convention. The Government should thus provide the additional information requested by the Committee of Experts because, as the Employers' members emphasized, the available information was most inadequate. The Government could also consider requesting technical assistance from the ILO to bring its system into conformity with the Convention.

The Worker member of Croatia informed the Committee that, with the exception of the large number of unemployed persons, the most significant socio-economic problem in the country was the 100,000 or more people, or some 8 per cent of workers, who did not receive their salaries for months at a time. The consequences of this on the application of the Convention were that, whenever their employers were unable or unwilling to pay their wages, they did not pay the workers' health insurance contributions. According to trade union sources, there had been a number of cases in which medical care had been denied to such workers. Although the real impact of the situation was not easy to assess, it appeared not to have taken on dramatic proportions at the present time, partly because of the flexible attitude adopted by doctors and medical staff in their interpretation of what was meant by emergency aid and medical treatment. Nevertheless, the legal insecurity concerning the health protection of thousands of workers in the country was absolutely unacceptable and endangered the implementation of the constitutional principle guaranteeing health protection to every citizen. While welcoming the fact that the country belonged to the exclusive group of nations which had ratified all seven core ILO Conventions, and the high level of rights accorded by the national legislation, he regretted the deep crisis in the law courts in Croatia. In particular, the Constitutional Court had not yet handed down a decision on this issue which concerned the fundamental right to health protection. The crisis had emerged in the health insurance system due to the reluctance of the Government to enforce the payment of contributions through fear of provoking the bankruptcy of the enterprises concerned. Such measures to protect uneconomical enterprises could only be justified if the cost of health insurance was borne by the State in such cases. If this were not the case, the ones who suffered would be the workers. Since section 59 of the Health Insurance Act was open to very different interpretations, it was necessary that the Government proceeded with modifications to the law and that clear and unambiguous provisions be adopted. Finally, he thanked the ILO for the assistance that it had provided to Croatian trade unions, particularly for the development of labour legislation.

The Worker member of Romania subscribed to the comments of the Workers' members so as to underline that a very serious violation of the right of workers to social protection was at the heart of this case. Since the provisions of section 59 of the Health Insurance Act were contrary to the provisions of the Convention, which was an international treaty of superior status to internal laws, they should be amended. The situation where it was the worker who suffered because of his employer's failure to fulfil the obligation to pay contributions was not acceptable. The Government should therefore assume its obligations under the Convention by amending the legislation and should supply a detailed report on progress achieved in this regard.

The Government representative feared that the members of the Committee might have misunderstood the situation in the country and arrived at the erroneous conclusion that a very large number of poor workers were deprived of health care. If such had been the case, it would have been very easy to provide individual examples. She reaffirmed that, as far as she knew, there had been no cases in which the life of any worker had been endangered due to the non-payment of health contributions by the employer. Indeed, the term "contribution payer" could not apply to employees, although it did include self-employed persons. Finally, she drew attention once again to the measures taken by the Government to take over the responsibilities of enterprises which were in difficulties with regard to health and pension insurance and she noted that the whole system was about to be changed. In any reforms that were made, the Government would do everything possible to ensure that the new legislation and systems took into account the obligations deriving from the Convention.

In response to the Committee's conclusions, the Government representative emphasized once again that there was no evidence that the problem in question was a mass phenomenon, nor that a large number of workers had been deprived of their rights to health care. Indeed, since the beginning of the year, not a single worker had been deprived of these rights. She also noted that the amendments to the relevant legislation had indeed been communicated to the Committee of Experts in a consolidated text in Croatian.

The Committee noted the statement made by the Government representative and the discussion which took place. While having noted the detailed information given by the Government representative, the Committee observed that the situation in national law and in practice, which had been found by the Committee of Experts to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Convention, had not changed in the meantime and that a large number of insured workers continued to be denied the full range of medical care guaranteed by the Convention. The Committee hoped that the Government would indicate in its next detailed report, to be submitted this year, full particulars on the measures taken or envisaged to bring its national law and practice in conformity with the Convention, in particular as concerned article 59 of the Health Insurance Act. The Committee trusted that the Government would provide to the Committee of Experts copies of all the texts it requested, and recalled that technical assistance of the ILO could be provided.

In response to the Committee's conclusions, the Government representative emphasized once again that there was no evidence that the problem in question was a mass phenomenon, nor that a large number of workers had been deprived of their rights to health care. Indeed, since the beginning of the year, not a single worker had been deprived of these rights. She also noted that the amendments to the relevant legislation had indeed been communicated to the Committee of Experts in a consolidated text in Croatian.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Government is asked to complete the report by supplying detailed information on the application of each Article of Parts II, III, IV and VIII for examination at the next session of the Committee in November–December 2008. As regards Part VI of the Convention, it is no longer applicable as the result of the ratification by Croatia of Convention No. 121. The Committee further notes that the statistical data given in the report is limited to the period January 2006–January 2007. It reminds that regular reports on Convention No. 102 are requested every five years and should cover the whole period elapsed since the previous report of the Government received in 2001.

Part XI (Standards to be complied with by periodical payments). (a) Article 65 or 66 (calculation of the level of benefits) of the Convention. According to the report, the level of all pension insurance benefits calculated for a standard beneficiary selected under Article 65 of the Convention is lower than the guaranteed minimum pension in Croatia, which in this case the beneficiary receives in place of a regular pension. The Committee points out that social security schemes complying with the levels of benefits prescribed by the Convention on the basis of the minimum pension guaranteed by the scheme should also be assessed with respect to the standard beneficiary selected under Article 66 of the Convention. It would therefore like the Government to include in its next report updated calculations of the level of pension insurance benefits and the unemployment benefit made according to the methodology laid out in Article 66.

(b) Article 65, paragraph 10, or Article 66, paragraph 8 (adjustment of benefits). The report indicates that the current pension value is adjusted at the rate equal to the sum of 50 per cent of the rate of change of consumer prices and 50 per cent of the rate of change of the average gross wages of all employees in Croatia in the previous six months. For the period January 2006–January 2007, consumer price index increased by 3.6 per cent and the wages index by 10.17 per cent, while the average old-age pension was adjusted only by 2.71 per cent, the average disability pension due to employment injury by 3.23 per cent and the average survivors’ benefit by 3.67 per cent. As the level of pension adjustment does not seem to correspond to the abovementioned adjustment formula, the Committee would like the Government to show, on the basis of the data for the whole period to be covered by the detailed report (2002–07), that the purchasing power of pensions was maintained and the adjustment of pensions kept pace with the changes in the consumer price index.

Part XIII (common provisions), Article 71, paragraph 2. According to the report, the insurance contributions of employees protected constituted 59.85 per cent of the total of the financial resources allocated to the protection of employees and their wives and children in the pension insurance covered by Parts V, VI, IX and X of the Convention. The Committee points out that the Convention requires the proportion of the financial resources constituted by the insurance contributions of employees protected not to exceed 50 per cent. For the purpose of ascertaining that this requirement is fulfilled, it would like the Government to take account, in addition to the pension insurance, of the financial resources allocated to benefits provided under Parts II, III, IV and VIII of the Convention accepted by Croatia.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes that the report contains detailed information concerning Parts V, VI and X of the Convention and very brief information concerning Part IV. Taking into account that Croatia has ratified also Parts II, III and VIII of the Convention, the Government is asked to complete the report by supplying detailed information on the application of each Article of Parts II, III, IV and VIII for examination at the next session of the Committee in
November–December 2008. As regards Part VI of the Convention, it is no longer applicable as the result of the ratification by Croatia of Convention No. 121. The Committee further notes that the statistical data given in the report is limited to the period January 2006–January 2007. It reminds that regular reports on Convention No. 102 are requested every five years and should cover the whole period elapsed since the previous report of the Government received in 2001.

Part XI (Standards to be complied with by periodical payments). (a) Article 65 or 66 (calculation of the level of benefits) of the Convention. According to the report, the level of all pension insurance benefits calculated for a standard beneficiary selected under Article 65 of the Convention is lower than the guaranteed minimum pension in Croatia, which in this case the beneficiary receives in place of a regular pension. The Committee points out that social security schemes complying with the levels of benefits prescribed by the Convention on the basis of the minimum pension guaranteed by the scheme should also be assessed with respect to the standard beneficiary selected under Article 66 of the Convention. It would therefore like the Government to include in its next report updated calculations of the level of pension insurance benefits and the unemployment benefit made according to the methodology laid out in Article 66.

(b) Article 65, paragraph 10, or Article 66, paragraph 8 (adjustment of benefits). The report indicates that the current pension value is adjusted at the rate equal to the sum of 50 per cent of the rate of change of consumer prices and 50 per cent of the rate of change of the average gross wages of all employees in Croatia in the previous six months. For the period January 2006–January 2007, consumer price index increased by 3.6 per cent and the wages index by 10.17 per cent, while the average old-age pension was adjusted only by 2.71 per cent, the average disability pension due to employment injury by 3.23 per cent and the average survivors’ benefit by 3.67 per cent. As the level of pension adjustment does not seem to correspond to the abovementioned adjustment formula, the Committee would like the Government to show, on the basis of the data for the whole period to be covered by the detailed report (2002–07), that the purchasing power of pensions was maintained and the adjustment of pensions kept pace with the changes in the consumer price index.

Part XIII (common provisions), Article 71, paragraph 2. According to the report, the insurance contributions of employees protected constituted 59.85 per cent of the total of the financial resources allocated to the protection of employees and their wives and children in the pension insurance covered by Parts V, VI, IX and X of the Convention. The Committee points out that the Convention requires the proportion of the financial resources constituted by the insurance contributions of employees protected not to exceed 50 per cent. For the purpose of ascertaining that this requirement is fulfilled, it would like the Government to take account, in addition to the pension insurance, of the financial resources allocated to benefits provided under Parts II, III, IV and VIII of the Convention accepted by Croatia.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2008.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

With reference to its previous direct requests, the Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government in its report, and particularly the information relating to Articles 20, 69(c) and 70, paragraph 1, of the Convention. It also notes the Pensions Act of 1998 in the English translation that the Government provided, supported by detailed explanations and statistics. It wishes to draw the Government’s attention to and/or be provided with further information on the following points.

Part IV (Unemployment benefit), Article 21 of the Convention. The Committee once again asks the Government to provide statistical information on the scope of the Employment Act, as requested in the report form under Title I, Article 76.

Article 22. (a) In reply to the Committee’s previous comments concerning Article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Government states that the Employment Act provides for the possibility of paying unemployment benefit in a single instalment at the request of the beneficiary, in accordance with section 24 of the Act. A decision (Official Journal, No. 59/90) adopted respecting the payment of the benefit in cash in a single instalment sets out the related conditions. However, the Government adds that up to now the Executive Council of the Employment Service has not approved such payments due to the lack of available resources. The Committee notes this information. It recalls that, in accordance with Article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention, unemployment benefit shall be a periodical payment. It hopes that the Government will bear these provisions fully in mind when making any decisions on the eventual implementation of Decision No. 59/90 and asks it to indicate any development in this respect in future reports. Please also provide the text of the above decision (Official Journal, No. 59/90).

(b) The Committee once again asks the Government to indicate whether the calculation of unemployment benefit is based on the provisions of Article 65 or Article 66, and to supply the corresponding statistical information requested in the report form under these Articles of the Convention, taking into consideration the fact that a maximum and minimum level are set for unemployment benefit (section 22 of the Employment Act).

Article 69. (a) The Committee once again asks the Government to provide information on the implementation in practice (administrative or judicial decisions, etc.) of section 19(4) of the Employment Act, which provides that an unemployed person whose employment relationship or service was ended by reason of a breach of the employment-related obligations (dismissal related to the misconduct of the employee), or for a serious violation of employment obligations or service duties, shall not be entitled to the cash benefit. The Committee recalls, in this respect that, in accordance with Article 69(f) of the Convention, the suspension of unemployment benefit is only authorized where the contingency has been caused by the wilful misconduct of the person concerned.

(b) The Committee recalls that section 19(3) of the Employment Act provides that an unemployed person is not entitled to unemployment benefit where the employment relationship has been ended because the person concerned has not succeeded in the probation period, with similar provisions applying to trainees. This ground for suspending benefit is not authorized by Article 69 of the Convention and the Committee therefore once again asks the Government to indicate the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to amend the legislation to secure the payment of unemployment benefit to the persons covered by section 19(3) of the Employment Act where they also fulfil the qualifying conditions set out in section 17 of the above Act.

Part V (Old-age benefit) and Part X (Survivors’ benefit). 1. Adjustment of benefits. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with interest the statistical information provided by the Government on fluctuations in the cost of living and the wages index, as well as on the adjustment of old-age and survivors’ benefit (minimum and average pension per beneficiary) in accordance with Articles 65, paragraph 10, and 66, paragraph 8, of the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to continue providing statistical information in future reports on the adjustment of benefits, as requested in the report form under Article 65 (Title VI).

2. The Committee asks the Government to confirm that periods of insurance completed under the legislation which was previously in force are taken into consideration for the purposes of the minimum qualifying periods required by the 1998 Act on pensions insurance (sections 30 and 60 of the above Act).

3. Finally, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide detailed information on the scope of sections 76 and 77 of the Act on pensions insurance, including indications on their implementation in practice.

Furthermore, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the application of the Convention in practice, in accordance with Part V of the report form, and particularly on any difficulties of a practical nature encountered in its implementation. It also asks the Government to indicate whether the necessary actuarial studies and calculations concerning the financial equilibrium of the pensions insurance scheme are made periodically, and to provide the results of such studies and calculations, in accordance with Article 71, paragraph 3, of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

1. Part II (Medical care), Article 10 of the Convention (in conjunction with Article 69). In its previous observations and subsequent to the comments received in March 1995 and April, September and November 1997 from the Union of Autonomous Trade Unions of Croatia (SSSH) the Committee noted that since the entry into force of the Health Insurance Act on 13 August 1993, a large number of workers found their health care benefits considerably reduced on the basis of section 59. This section, in the 1993 version, provides in particular that when contribution payers fail to pay their insurance contribution access to health protection funded by the Croatian Institute for Health Insurance shall be reduced to the right to emergency medical aid only. The Committee drew the Government’s attention to the fact that Article 69 of the Convention, which enumerates the cases in which benefits provided under the Convention, including medical care, may be suspended, does not refer to the situation of non-payment of contributions on behalf of the insured person. The Committee therefore asked the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to bring its national legislation and practice into compliance with the Convention.

The Committee notes with satisfaction the adoption on 29 January 1999 of a law amending and supplementing the Health Insurance Act, pursuant to the decision of the Constitutional Court on 9 November 1998 to repeal the provisions of section 59(2) and (3) of the Act. This 1999 Act strengthens, inter alia, the supervision of payment of contributions and modifies a number of provisions including section 59 by abolishing in particular provisions concerning the reduction of medical care to the right to emergency medical aid only for cases of non payment of contributions. While noting that this amendment is liable to permit improved application of the Convention, the Committee nevertheless found no indications, in the Government’s latest reports, regarding the effect in practice of the amendments issued by the Act of 29 January 1999 on the problems raised by the Union of Autonomous Trade Unions of Croatia (SSSH). It hopes that the Government’s next report will contain detailed information on the application in practice of the amendments to the Health Insurance Act and, in particular, whether the Health Insurance Institute of Croatia has adopted new instructions for regional offices, health centres and doctors.

2. In its previous observation, the Committee examined the matters raised by the Association of Clubs of Military Retirees of the Union of Retirees of Croatia regarding the amount of pensions due to retired personnel of the former Federal Army (JNA) with continuous residence in Croatia. Since then, the Association of Clubs of Military Retirees of the Union of Retirees of Croatia has supplied further information in communications received in May and November 1999 and in October 2000. The Committee notes this supplementary information along with the replies on this matter provided by the Government in December 1998, February, September and December 1999, December 2000 and June 2001. In particular, it notes the pension increases since 1 January 1993 which, according to information supplied by the Government, apply to all pensions paid in Croatia, including those of army pensions of the former Federal Army. The Committee also notes the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia on 20 January 1999 putting an end to the procedure of assessment of constitutionality of the provisions of sections 3 and 5 of the Act implementing the rights resulting from pension and invalidity insurance of members of the Former Yugoslav Federal Army.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report together with the legislation attached to it. It notes in particular the adoption of the new Pension Insurance Act which, according to the Government, will enter into force as from 1 January 1999. The Committee will proceed with the detailed examination of this Act once it has at its disposal a translation of the Act in one of the working languages of the Office. It hopes that the Government's next report will provide detailed information on the incidence of the new legislation on the application of each of the corresponding Articles of the Convention. The Committee would also like to draw the Government's attention to and/or receive additional information on the following points.

1. Part IV (Unemployment benefit), Article 21 of the Convention. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply the statistical information required by the report form on the Convention in the form set out in Title I under Article 76.

Article 22. (a) The Committee notes that section 24 of the Law on Employment of 1996 allows the unemployment benefit, at the request of the beneficiary, to be paid in one instalment. It would ask the Government to explain how this section is being applied in practice, taking into account that, according to Article 22(1) of the Convention, the benefit shall be a periodical payment.

(b) Please state whether, for the calculation of unemployment benefit, recourse is made to the provisions of Article 65 or to those of Article 66, and supply the corresponding statistical information requested in the report form under these Articles of the Convention, taking into consideration the fact that a maximum and a minimum is set for the amount of unemployment benefit (section 22, paragraph 2, of the Law on Employment).

Article 69 (read together with Article 20). (1) The Committee notes that section 19 of the Law on Employment lists the grounds of termination of the employment contract which lead to refusal of unemployment benefit. It would appear however that certain grounds, as they are worded in section 19, might go beyond those authorized by Article 69 read together with Article 20. The Committee would therefore like the Government to provide additional information and explanations as to the practical application of the provisions in question with respect to the following points:

(a) Please indicate whether refusal of unemployment benefit on the grounds mentioned in paragraph 1 of section 19 of the Law on Employment would be confined in practice only to cases where the person concerned has refused a contract of employment or service considered as suitable in conformity with Article 20.

(b) Please supply information on the practical application of the provisions contained in paragraph 4 of section 19 of the Law on Employment, taking into account that Article 69(f) authorizes suspension of the unemployment benefit only in cases where the contingency has been caused by the wilful misconduct of the person concerned.

(c) Please supply information on the practical application of the provisions contained in sections 19(7), 28(3), 28(5) and 28(10) of the Law on Employment, indicating in particular whether a person receiving unemployment benefit can temporarily postpone his entitlement to old-age or invalidity pension, if the amount of his unemployment benefit is higher (Article 69(c)).

(2) Section 19(3) of the Law on Employment prescribes the loss of the right to unemployment benefit in case the person concerned did not succeed in his/her probation period or did not complete examinations which specialize him/her. The Committee draws the Government's attention to the fact that such a ground for suspension of unemployment benefit is not contemplated under Article 69. It would therefore ask the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to ensure provision of unemployment benefit to those persons when they fulfil the qualifying period prescribed under section 17 of the Law on Employment.

2. Part V (Old-age benefit), Article 28, and Part X (Survivors' benefit), Article 62, in conjunction with Article 65, paragraph 10. The Committee notes from the Government's previous information that, for budget reasons, old-age pensions had not been increased during 1995 and 1996. It further notes, from the statement made by the Government representative in the Conference Committee in June 1998, that since January 1997 pensions have been adjusted according to the rise in the cost of living. The Committee would therefore ask the Government to confirm this statement in its next report and to provide the updated statistical information required by the report form under Article 65, paragraph 10 (Title VI) for the whole period beginning from 1995.

3. Part XIII (Common provisions), Article 70, paragraph 1. Please indicate which provisions of the legislation ensure the right of appeal in respect of unemployment benefit.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2000.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

1. Article 10 of the Convention, in relation to Article 69. With reference to its previous observations, the Committee recalls that the Union of Autonomous Trade Unions of Croatia (SSSH) alleged, in comments communicated in March 1995, April, September and November 1997, that, since the entry into force of the Health Insurance Act on 13 August 1993, a large number of workers in Croatia have been denied health protection on the basis of its section 59 (remaining unchanged in the revised text of this Act published in the Official Gazette No. 1/97 of 3 January 1997). Section 59 provides, in particular, that for contribution payers who fail to pay the insurance contribution, the use of health protection funded by the Croatian Institute for Health Insurance shall be reduced to the right to emergency medical aid only. While drawing the Government's attention to the fact that Article 69 of the Convention, which enumerates the cases in which benefits provided under the Convention, including medical care, may be suspended, does not refer to the situation of non-payment of contributions on behalf of the insured person, the Committee asked the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to bring its national legislation and practice in this respect into compliance with the Convention. It has also asked the Government to supply a copy of the decision, once adopted, of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia at the request of the SSSH to pronounce on the constitutionality of section 59 of the Health Insurance Act, as well as the Government's written reply, requested by a Member of Parliament, on the measures contemplated in order to harmonize section 59 of the said Act with the Croatian Constitution and Convention No. 102.

In its latest report, the Government provides detailed information on the questions relating to health insurance, in particular, and supplies the text of the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia handed down on 15 July 1998 to initiate the procedure of assessment of constitutionality of section 59, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Health Insurance Act. The Government also refers to the discussion concerning this case at the Conference Committee in June 1998.

At the Conference Committee, the Government representative stated that in the Croatian health insurance system the obligation to make the payment of the employees' contributions lay with the employer, who was defined as a "contribution payer", while self-employed persons and equivalent groups were obliged to pay the contributions themselves. Under section 59(2) of the Health Insurance Act, the right to health care could only be restricted for persons who were obliged to pay contributions themselves. This provision did not therefore constitute an authorization to restrict the right of employees to health care. The Croatian Institute for Health Insurance maintained a list of persons who were obliged to pay contributions themselves and of those whose right to health care was restricted for the non-payment of contributions. It also maintained a list of legal and physical persons whose payments of contributions for employees were also more than three months overdue. The existence of the two lists was misleading, since it might wrongly be assumed that section 59(2) also referred to the second list. The problem of the collection of insurance contributions in the country had worsened in 1995 and 1996 as, in the general economic and social situation affected by war and transition, the employers were faced every month with the problem of payment of wages, including the payment of health and pension insurance contributions. The Institute endeavoured to resolve such problems by making special arrangements with the employers for the deferral of contributions. In 1996, the Government requested the Institute to keep records of contribution arrears and, within the framework of the programme for the rehabilitation and restructuring of enterprises in difficulties but which had good prospects of recovery, it had transferred insurance claims to the state budget, thus providing considerable resources for health and pension insurance of employees in these enterprises. According to the Government representative, it was clear that the SSSH's allegations of a massive denial of the right of employees to health care was not correct. The Government was aware that the problems of the financing of health care could only be resolved by the recovery of the economy, by a reduction in unemployment and a reform of the health-care and health insurance systems. A commission had therefore been established for the reform of these systems, in which representatives of workers and employers would be involved. The Government would also welcome assistance from the ILO in this respect.

The Committee takes due note of the information and explanations provided by the Government and of the discussion which took place in the Conference Committee on this case. It notes that the Government representative insisted that section 59(2) of the Health Insurance Act could not be legally interpreted as an authorization for restricting the right to health protection of employees; that, since the beginning of the year 1998, not a single worker had been deprived of this right; that the list of persons whose right to health protection was restricted for the non-payment of contributions, maintained by the Croatian Institute for Health Insurance, concerned only those persons who were obliged to pay contributions themselves; and that the second list maintained by the Institute, that of legal and physical persons whose payments of contributions for employees were overdue for more than three months, was not related to section 59(2) of the Act. The Committee recalls in this respect that the two letters, dated 24 June and 23 July 1997, submitted by the SSSH and referred to in the Committee's previous observation, sent respectively by the Institute to its regional offices and by the regional Zagreb office of the Institute to health centres and physicians, in their English translation expressly stated that the reduction of benefits to health care payable by the Institute was to be applied to "all employees, and members of the families, of contribution payers who have not partially or totally settled their obligations towards the Croatian Institute for Health Insurance for three months and more". For this purpose, according to the first letter, the regional offices of the Institute were placed under an obligation to inform its Department for the Collection of Contributions of "the name of the contribution payer -- a legal person", with the exception of certain specified joint-stock companies, indicating the number of the policy and the date of reduction. As regards "other contribution-payers (persons engaged in economic activity, professional activity or those who are paying contributions themselves and others)", their total number was to be communicated. From the text of these instructions it is difficult not to conclude that the list of the legal persons who failed to pay contributions for their employees was being maintained by the Institute for the express purpose of reducing health care in respect of their employees and members of their families under the provisions of section 59(2) of the Health Insurance Act. The Committee further notes that the Worker members in the Conference Committee, including the Worker member from Croatia, pointed out during the discussion of this case that one of the most significant socio-economic problems in the country was the non-payment of wages to approximately 100,000 workers by their employers, who at the same time did not pay the workers' health insurance contributions. According to trade union sources, there had been a number of cases in which medical care had been denied to such workers, and since section 59 was open to very different interpretations, it was necessary for the Government to proceed with modifications to the law, so that clear and unambiguous provisions could be adopted. Finally, in its conclusions, the Conference Committee had invited the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to bring its national law and practice into conformity with the Convention, in particular as regards section 59 of the Health Insurance Act.

The Committee notes that the Government's latest report, which was received in September 1998, does not mention any measure which would attest to a change in the situation. However, it notes with interest the ruling handed down by the Government of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia referred to above, in which, having examined the allegations of the SSSH and the provisions of the legislation, the Court decided that there were sufficient grounds to open the procedure for questioning the constitutionality of the provisions of section 59, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Health Insurance Act without waiting for the corresponding statements requested from the competent bodies. The Court pointed out that general medical care, specialist health care and hospitalization were indissociably included in the right to health protection, and that limiting coverage to emergency medical care, with the total exclusion of other forms of health protection, called into question the basis of the said section, paragraph 2, as it was in contradiction to the provision of the Constitution guaranteeing to every citizen the right to health protection. The Court also recalled that the Institute had the possibility to claim, through the body empowered to collect the funds and on the basis of the decision of a tribunal, the payment of unpaid insurance contributions and the transfer of the corresponding amounts from the bank account of the contribution payer to the Institute. Taking into account that the insured persons did not have the power to exercise any influence on the person who was obliged to pay their contributions, and sustained damage when this person failed to pay them, the Court considered that the constitutionality of section 59, paragraphs 2 and 3, reducing health protection seemed doubtful. Furthermore, in its opinion, there were good reasons to believe that these provisions were also in conflict with Convention No. 102, which forms part of the legal order of the Republic of Croatia and which, by virtue of section 134 of the Constitution, has primacy over national law.

In this situation, the Committee trusts that in its next report the Government will not fail to supply detailed information on the measures taken to ensure that section 59 of the Health Insurance Act is not interpreted in law and used in practice so as to reduce the right to health protection of the insured workers (and their dependants) whose employers have not paid contributions on their behalf. It hopes that, in the immediate future, the Government will use its authority to request the Croatian Institute for Health Insurance to issue new instructions to its regional offices and to health centres and physicians expressly requiring them not to reduce health care with respect to employees (and members of their families) of contribution payers who failed to pay contributions on their behalf, and to take all other steps necessary to ensure that such practice will not be repeated. It also hopes that the question of compliance with Articles 10 and 69 of the Convention in this respect will be brought to the attention of the commission established to proceed with the reform of the health-care and health insurance systems, referred to by the Government representative at the Conference Committee, and that the Government will supply information on its work. In addition, the Committee would like the Government to supply the text of the final decision of the Constitutional Court, once handed down. Finally, it would like to draw the Government's attention to the possibility of requesting the necessary assistance from the competent technical department of the Office.

2. With reference to its previous observation, the Committee has examined the questions raised by the Association of Clubs of Military Retirees of the Union of Retirees of Croatia, in its communications received in April and August 1997, with regard to the application of Conventions Nos. 48 and 102, together with the Government's written reply received in November 1997, as well as the oral explanations given by its representative in the Conference Committee in June 1998. It has also taken note of the comments of the said Association, dated 17 October 1998, on the Government's latest report on the application of Convention No. 48. The Association alleges partial implementation by Croatia of the obligation it assumed in 1991 to take over the payment of pensions due to army pensioners of the former Federal Army (JNA) with continuous residence in Croatia. It specifies that the amount of the pension paid to the above-mentioned retirees as from 1 January 1992 by the Republic of Croatia constituted only 63.22 per cent of the amount of the pension to which they were entitled in December 1991, and that all subsequent adjustments of pensions have not changed the situation. In its reply, the Government states that the military pensions of the former Federal Army paid in December 1991 reflect a special increase of 40 per cent which has been given to the officers of the JNA on active service as a pay increase. The criterion for setting military pensions at 63.22 per cent of the pension amount of December 1991 was arrived at by equating the highest amount of military pension to the highest pension paid out of the Republic Fund for the Retirement and Invalidity Insurance of the Workers of Croatia; this ratio was used to determine the amount of all of the other military pensions. Starting from 1 January 1993, military pensions were increased so that in real terms they attained 73 per cent of the level of December 1991. The Government also stated that military pensions are being adjusted in the same way as pensions of all other classes of retired persons. While taking due note of this information, the Committee would like the Government to include in its next reports information on any further increases and regular adjustments of the pensions of the military retirees concerned.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2000.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

1. With reference to its previous observation, the Committee recalls that the Union of Autonomous Trade Unions of Croatia (SSSH) alleged, in the comments dated 15 March 1995, that a large number of workers in Croatia were denied health protection on the basis of section 59 of the Health Insurance Act enforced as of 13 August 1993 which provides, in particular, that for contribution payers who fail to pay the insurance contribution, the use of health protection funded by the Croatian Institute for Health Insurance shall be reduced to the right to emergency medical aid only. The SSSH pointed out that under the said legislation the obligation to pay contribution rests with the employer who deducts it from the wage of the insured workers employed by him, and that in case the employer fails to pay the contribution, the insured worker has no legal possibility personally to pay the contribution, nor does he have any other legal means of recourse to force the employer to pay it, while the Institute to which the contributions are paid has the legal possibility to exact payment from employers. The Committee further recalls that, in its reply, the Government indicated that the amendments to the Health Insurance Act, in force since July 1996, empower the Institute to collect arrears of contributions, which measure would be directed exclusively towards employers who are obliged to pay them. The Committee has therefore asked the Government to supply a copy of the amendments in question and to confirm that the legal provisions contained in section 59 of the Health Insurance Act, as well as the practice referred to by the SSSH, concerning the restriction of health protection funded by the Institute of Health Insurance to emergency medical aid, in case of non-payment of contributions by the employers on behalf of their insured workers, were in fact abolished in conformity with Article 69 of the Convention.

The Committee notes the new comments communicated by the SSSH in April and September 1997, as well as the Government's reply to them received 1 December 1997.

As regards the amendments referred to by the Government, the SSSH states that the Government passed a regulation concerning deduction of insurance contributions before payment of workers' wages, but this regulation did not have any effect; as regards the above-mentioned provisions of section 59 of the Health Insurance Act, they remained unchanged in the text of this Act published in the Official Gazette No. 1/97 of 3 January 1997. Thus, according to the SSSH, the reduction of the right to health care continues to be implemented for categories of workers whose employers fail to pay contributions on their behalf and became a mass phenomenon. As a result, a great number of citizens are denied special health care and hospital care, including surgery, diagnostic examination and numerous health services guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia and by Convention No. 102. In support of these statements, the SSSH provides translation in English of two letters, dated 24 June and 23 July 1997, sent respectively by the national Croatian Institute for Health Insurance to its regional offices and by the regional Zagreb office of the Institute to health centres and physicians. Both letters in their English translation expressly invoke the provisions of section 59 of the text of the Health Insurance Act and ask health centres and physicians to reduce benefits of health care payable by the Croatian Institute for Health Insurance to the right to emergency aid in respect of all employees and members of their families contribution-payers who have not partially or totally settled their contributions for three months and more, subject to certain exceptions. Attached to the second letter is the partial list of persons to whom this measure is applied. This letter expressly states that, if beside emergency aid, the health centres and physicians give these persons other medical assistance, the Institute will not cover their expenses. Finally, the SSSH informs that, as early as 9 March 1995 and subsequently on 17 April 1997, it has requested the Constitutional Court to pronounce on the constitutionality of section 59 of the Health Insurance Act, and that separate letters were also sent at this latter date to the Government and the Parliament drawing attention to the case.

In its reply, the Government indicates that section 59 of the Health Insurance Act (Official Gazette Nos. 1/97 and 109/97) provides that the Institute is obliged to monitor the collection of contributions for compulsory health insurance, and regulates that health care may be reduced to urgent medical treatment if the contributions have not been paid; urgent medical treatment meaning in fact the provision of health care which is needed for the removal of the risk to one's life or for the prevention of deterioration of one's health condition. From the circular letters sent by the Institute and its regional office in Zagreb, it is clear that this case refers to the reduction of health care rights and not to the denial of these rights, as alleged by the SSSH. Besides, these letters speak of the provision of urgent medical treatment and not of the "emergency aid", as it is stated by the SSSH. Furthermore, the instructions from the circular letters specify that the reduction of health care does not apply to children under 18 years of age; pregnant women receiving health care with regard to pregnancy and confinement; soldiers in the homeland war; and certain joint-stock companies. On the basis of these arguments, the Government concludes that this is not a case of the deprivation of rights to health care, particularly as regards the rights guaranteed by Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention, and that the information contained in the complaint of the SSSH referring to the activities of the Institute in the application of health insurance regulations is incomplete and, therefore, to a large extent not true. Finally, with respect to the SSSH's statement that workers can not have influence on the payment of contributions by their irresponsible employers, the Government specifies that, according to the Institute, the irregularity in the payment of health contributions is frequently manifested for the category of insured who are self-employed persons and thus are obliged to make their contribution payments by themselves.

The Committee takes good note of the information supplied by the Government. It did not find however a reply to its request formulated in its previous observation asking for the text of the amendments to the Health Insurance Act, which, according to the Government, were to ensure that arrears in insurance contributions would be collected by the Institute so that these measures will be directed exclusively towards employers who are obliged to pay them. The Committee further observes that the Government does not contest the SSSH's statement that the provisions of section 59 of the said Act concerning the restriction of health protection funded by the Institute in respect of workers for whom contribution was not paid by their employers, continue to be widely applied in practice. The Government insists however, with reference to Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention, that the effect of such restrictions consist not in totally depriving the persons concerned of the right to health care, but of reducing it to urgent medical treatment which, according to the Government, has a larger meaning than the term "emergency aid" used by the SSSH and includes not only the removal of the immediate risk to life, but also "the prevention of deterioration of one's health condition". It also indicates the categories of persons to whom this limitation is not applicable.

The Committee wishes to point out that the types of the medical care to which persons protected should be entitled as of right in respect of a condition requiring medical care of a preventive or curative nature, in accordance with Article 7 of the Convention, are laid down in its Article 10, and that the purpose of Articles 8 and 9 in this respect is to ensure respectively that such medical care should be provided for any morbid condition, whatever its cause, and be available for all persons falling under the scope of Article 9. It recalls that Article 69 of the Convention which enumerates the cases in which benefits provided under the Convention, including medical care, may be suspended, does not refer to the situation of non-payment of contributions on behalf of the insured person. The Committee would therefore once again ask the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to bring its national legislation (section 59 of the Health Insurance Act) and practice in this respect in compliance with the Convention. The Committee would be equally grateful to receive a copy of the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia on this case, if taken.

The Committee furthermore notes a new communication from SSSH received on 20 November 1997, in which it supplies a copy of the letter of an opposition Member of Parliament to the President of the House of Deputies requesting a public written reply on the measures contemplated in order to harmonize section 59 of the said Act with the Croatian Constitution and Convention No. 102. As the Government had not yet the opportunity to reply to this communication, which was transmitted to it by the Office, the Committee hopes that its next report would include a copy of such written reply.

Finally, the Committee wishes to draw the Government's attention to the fact that its comments refer exclusively to the granting of medical care as provided for under Articles 7, 8 and 10 of the Convention to the employees protected for whom payment of contributions under the Croatian law is a legal obligation of their employer, and not to the self-employed persons who, as stated by the Government, have to pay their contributions by themselves.

2. The Committee notes the communications, dated 23 April and 12 August 1997, from the Association of Clubs of Military Retirees of the Union of Retirees of Croatia concerning the application of Conventions Nos. 48 and 102, as well as the Government's reply to them. In view of the fact that this reply was received shortly before the opening of the Committee's session, it decided to examine the questions raised as regards the payment of retirement pensions of the members residing in Croatia of the former federal army (JNA) at its next session, together with any additional information which the Government may wish to supply in this respect.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1998.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes the first report of the Government which also contains a reply to the questions raised in its previous observation in connection with the comments made by the Union of Autonomous Trade Unions of Croatia (UATUC).

1. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments the UATUC alleged that a large number of workers in Croatia were denied health protection on the basis of section 59 of the Health Insurance Act in force as of 13 August 1993 which provides, in particular, that for contribution payers who fail to pay the insurance contribution, the use of health protection funded by the Institute for Health Insurance shall be reduced to the right to emergency medical aid only. The UATUC pointed out that under the said legislation the obligation to pay a contribution rests with the employer who deducts it from the wage of the insured workers employed by him, and that in case the employer fails to pay the contribution, the insured worker has no legal possibility personally to pay the contribution, nor does he have any other legal means of recourse to force the employer to pay it, while the Institute for Health Insurance to which the contributions are paid has the legal possibility to exact payment from employers.

In reply, the Government indicates that amendments to the Health Insurance Act, which have been in force since July 1996, provide for measures which give the Institute for Health Insurance the authority to collect arrears of contributions from the persons under obligation to pay them. The Government considers that in this way the measures for the collection of health insurance contributions will be directed exclusively towards employers who are obliged to pay them.

The Committee notes this information. It asks the Government to supply a copy of the amendments in question as well as to confirm that the legal provisions contained in section 59 of the Health Insurance Act, as well as the practice, referred to by UATUC, concerning the restriction of health protection funded by the Institute of Health Insurance to emergency medical aid, in case of non-payment of contributions by the employers on behalf of their insured workers, were abolished in conformity with Article 69 of the Convention.

2. In its previous observation the Committee has raised a number of questions in connection with the UATUC's comments alleging that, as a result of the amendments of the Employment Act of 21 October 1994, a number of unemployed persons have been taken off the unemployment record on the grounds which were considerably wider than those provided for in section 51 of this Act which regulates the loss of the right to an unemployment allowance. The Committee notes that the Government refers in its report to a new law on employment adopted by the Croatian Parliament on 28 June 1996, and, in particular, to the provisions under which the right to an unemployment benefit could be suspended, inter alia, in cases where the person concerned establishes an enterprise or becomes self-employed (personal labour or professional activity). The Committee would like the Government to supply the text of the law on employment of 1996 in force, together with any other relevant regulations.

3. The Committee will proceed with a detailed examination of the information contained in the Government's report once it has at its disposal the translation into English or French of the text of the various relevant legislative texts.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee notes the communications, dated 15 March 1995, from the Union of Autonomous Trade Unions of Croatia (UATUC) concerning the application of Convention No. 102, as well as Conventions Nos. 111 and 122, inasmuch as the issues raised under these latter instruments relate also to the application of Part IV (Unemployment benefit) of Convention No. 102.

I. In its communication referring to Convention No. 102, the UATUC alleges that a large number of workers in Croatia have been recently denied health protection on the basis of section 59 of the Health Insurance Act in force as of 13 August 1993 which, according to the documents submitted by the UATUC, provides, in particular, that for contribution-payers who fail to pay the insurance contribution, the use of health protection funded by the Institute for Health Insurance shall be reduced to the right to emergency medical aid only. The UATUC points out that under the said legislation the obligation to pay a contribution rests with the employer who deducts it from the wage of the insured workers employed by him, and that in case the employer fails to pay the contribution, the insured worker has no legal possibility to personally pay the contribution, nor does he have any other legal means of recourse to force the employer to pay it, while the Institute for Health Insurance to which the contributions are paid, has the legal possibility to exact payment from employers. According to the UATUC, the above-mentioned section 59 of the Health Insurance Act is being applied with the result that workers are being denied all forms of health protection, except for emergency medical aid. It adds that it has instituted a procedure with the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia to abolish this provision.

The Committee wishes to recall in this connection that Article 69 of the Convention which enumerates the cases in which benefits provided under the Convention, including medical care, may be suspended, does not refer to the situation of non-payment of contributions on behalf of the insured person. The Committee therefore hopes that the Government's next report would contain a detailed reply to the allegations made by the UATUC, including information on any measures taken or contemplated to give full effect to the Convention on this point, as well as the above-mentioned decision of the Constitutional Court, if taken.

II. In its communication concerning the application of Conventions Nos. 111 and 122, the UATUC points out significant questions raised by the amendments of the Employment Act of 21 October 1994. According to the UATUC, these amendments have taken off the unemployment record a number of unemployed persons in a certain number of cases, such as when they become major owners or co-owners of an enterprise, trade or farm; become members of a farming household; are found working without having entered into employment; or have refused employment inferior to their qualifications, seasonal work, a socially useful job, etc. The UATUC adds that some of the grounds for being taken off the unemployment record are considerably wider than the reasons provided for in article 51 of the Employment Act which regulates the loss of the right to an unemployment allowance. On 12 January 1995 the Union challenged the constitutionality of these provisions before the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia.

The Committee notes this information. In view of the fact that the changes in the Employment Act adopted in 1994 may affect the application of Part IV (Unemployment benefit) of Convention No. 102, in particular as concerns the definition of contingency and of the term "suitable employment", as well as the determination of the cases of suspension of benefit (Article 69 of the Convention), the Committee would hope that in its next report the Government would not fail to provide:

(a) detailed information on the application of the provisions of Part IV (Unemployment benefit) of Convention No. 102 in light of the allegations made by the UATUC;

(b) the text of the Employment Act together with all the latest amendments, as well as any other relevant legislation;

(c) a copy of the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia on this case, if any.

III. The Committee also hopes that the Government's next report will contain full particulars on the application of all the Parts of the Convention that have been accepted, together with the text of the relevant national legislation adopted since 1991.