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

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

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

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Article 1, subparagraph a, of the Convention. Sanctions for expressing political views. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 285(1) of the Criminal Code, “organization or leadership of large scale disturbances” is punishable with deprivation of freedom for a term of up to ten years. It noted that section 346 of the Criminal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment for a term of up to three years for “inflaming of the national, racial or religious enmity”. The Committee has noted that under section 253 of the Execution of Sentences Code, sanctions of imprisonment involve an obligation to perform labour.

The Committee points out, referring also to the explanations contained in paragraphs 152–166 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence or incite to the use of violence, armed resistance or an uprising. But sanctions involving compulsory labour are incompatible with the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of non-violent views that are critical of government policy and the established political system. Since political opinions and views are often expressed not only through different communications media, but also at various kinds of meetings and manifestations, the prohibition of certain kinds of meetings by way of sanctioning “large scale disturbances” or “violation of public order” may give rise to political coercion falling within the scope of the Convention.

The Committee noted that the above provisions of the Criminal Code provide for penal sanctions involving compulsory labour in circumstances defined in terms which are wide enough to give rise to questions about their application in practice. It therefore requested the Government to communicate copies of the court decisions which could define or illustrate the scope of these provisions. Having noted the Government’s indication in its 2006 report concerning technical difficulties in obtaining the information requested, the Committee hopes that the Government will however be in a position to supply such information with its next report, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether sections 285(1) and 346 of the Criminal Code are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

Article 1, subparagraph c. Sanctions for violation of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 329 of the Criminal Code, the non-performance or improper performance by an official of his duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm to legitimate rights and interests of persons or organizations, or to public interests, is punishable by deprivation of freedom for a term of up to three years (which involves compulsory prison labour). In order to enable the Committee to ascertain whether this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, the Committee again requests the Government to supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

Article 1, subparagraph d. Sanctions for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously noted that section 358(1) of the Criminal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) for the organization of or active participation in group actions breaking violently public order and resulting in disturbances of operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations. Similarly, section 285(1) referred to under Article 1(a) above, stipulates that “organization or leadership of large scale disturbances resulting in the obstruction of normal operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations” is punishable with deprivation of freedom for a term of up to ten years (which involves compulsory prison labour).

While noting the Government’s views concerning the reasons for restricting the right to strike expressed in its 2006 report, the Committee refers to its comments addressed to the Government under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by Moldova, and draws the Government’s attention to the explanations in paragraphs 182–189 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, in which it recalled that the imposition of restrictions on the right to strike enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory labour is only possible in essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population), or with respect to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, or in the situations of force majeure. However, as the Committee previously noted, section 369 of the Labour Code imposes restrictions on the right to strike (enforceable with penal sanctions in accordance with section 370) in a wider range of circumstances, particularly by defining in an unduly extensive manner categories of workers prohibited from participating in strikes, which is not in conformity with the Convention.

The Committee therefore reiterates its hope that measures will be taken to ensure that the above provisions imposing restrictions on the right to strike enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory prison labour are limited in scope to essential services in the strict sense of the term, or to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, or to the cases of force majeure, and that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for participation in peaceful strikes in other services. The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

Supply of legislation. The Committee requests the Government to communicate, with its next report, a copy of the regulations governing service on board seagoing vessels, to which reference is made in section 58 of the Merchant Shipping Code, as well as any other provisions governing labour discipline in merchant shipping.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Article 1(b) of the Convention. Mobilizing of labour for purposes of economic development. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted a communication received in February 2004 from the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Republic of Moldova (CSRM), which contains observations concerning the application of the forced labour Conventions Nos 105 and 29, ratified by the Republic of Moldova. The CSRM referred, in particular, to certain provisions of the Law on mobilization, No. 1192-XV of 4 July 2002, the Law on the requisitioning of goods and services in the public interest, No. 1352-XV of 11 October 2002, and the government decision to approve regulations on the mobilization at the workplace, No. 751 of 24 June 2003, under which the central and local authorities, as well as military bodies, can exact compulsory labour from the population under certain conditions as a means of mobilizing and using labour for purposes of the development of the national economy. Thus, section 3(b) of the Law on the requisitioning of goods and services in the public interest referred to above stipulates that one of the aims of such requisitioning is to create conditions for the good functioning of the national economy and public institutions.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(b) of the Convention prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour “as a method of mobilizing and using labour for purposes of economic development” and expresses the hope that the Government will provide, in its next report, information on measures taken or envisaged in order to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

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

Referring to its observation under the Convention, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments. It notes, in particular, the Code on Administrative Offences, the Execution of Sentences Code, the Merchant Shipping Code, the Law on Public Service, the Press Law and the Law on the Organization and Conducting of Assemblies and Meetings, supplied by the Government with its report.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions for expressing political views. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that, under section 285(1) of the Criminal Code, “organization or leadership of large scale disturbances” is punishable with deprivation of freedom for a term of up to ten years. It noted that section 346 of the Criminal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment for a term of up to three years for “inflaming of the national, racial or religious enmity”. The Committee has noted that under section 253 of the Execution of Sentences Code, sanctions of imprisonment involve an obligation to perform labour.

The Committee points out, referring also to the explanations contained in paragraphs 152–166 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence or incite to the use of violence, armed resistance or an uprising. But sanctions involving compulsory labour are incompatible with the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of non-violent views that are critical of government policy and the established political system. Since political opinions and views are often expressed not only through different communications media, but also at various kinds of meetings and manifestations, the prohibition of certain kinds of meetings by way of sanctioning “large scale disturbances” or “violation of public order” may give rise to political coercion falling within the scope of the Convention.

The Committee noted that the above provisions of the Criminal Code provide for penal sanctions involving compulsory labour in circumstances defined in terms which are wide enough to give rise to questions about their application in practice. It therefore requested the Government to communicate copies of the court decisions which could define or illustrate the scope of these provisions. Having noted the Government’s indication in its 2006 report concerning technical difficulties in obtaining the information requested, the Committee hopes that the Government will however be in a position to supply such information with its next report, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether sections 285(1) and 346 of the Criminal Code are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

Article 1(c). Sanctions for violation of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that, under section 329 of the Criminal Code, the non-performance or improper performance by an official of his duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm to legitimate rights and interests of persons or organizations, or to public interests, is punishable by deprivation of freedom for a term of up to three years (which involves compulsory prison labour). In order to enable the Committee to ascertain whether this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, the Committee again requests the Government to supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

Article 1(d). Sanctions for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously noted that section 358(1) of the Criminal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) for the organization of or active participation in group actions breaking violently public order and resulting in disturbances of operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations. Similarly, section 285(1) referred to under Article 1(a) above, stipulates that “organization or leadership of large scale disturbances resulting in the obstruction of normal operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations” is punishable with deprivation of freedom for a term of up to ten years (which involves compulsory prison labour).

While noting the Government’s views concerning the reasons for restricting the right to strike expressed in its 2006 report, the Committee refers to its comments addressed to the Government under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by Moldova, and draws the Government’s attention to the explanations in paragraphs 182–189 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, in which it recalled that the imposition of restrictions on the right to strike enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory labour is only possible in essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population), or with respect to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, or in the situations of force majeure. However, as the Committee previously noted, section 369 of the Labour Code imposes restrictions on the right to strike (enforceable with penal sanctions in accordance with section 370) in a wider range of circumstances, particularly by defining in an unduly extensive manner categories of workers prohibited from participating in strikes, which is not in conformity with the Convention.

The Committee therefore reiterates its hope that measures will be taken to ensure that the above provisions imposing restrictions on the right to strike enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory prison labour are limited in scope to essential services in the strict sense of the term, or to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, or to the cases of force majeure, and that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for participation in peaceful strikes in other services. The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

Supply of legislation. The Committee requests the Government to communicate, with its next report, a copy of the regulations governing service on board seagoing vessels, to which reference is made in section 58 of the Merchant Shipping Code, as well as any other provisions governing labour discipline in merchant shipping.

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

Article 1(b) of the Convention. Mobilizing of labour for purposes of economic development. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted a communication received in February 2004 from the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Republic of Moldova (CSRM), which contains observations concerning the application of the forced labour Conventions Nos 105 and 29, ratified by the Republic of Moldova. The CSRM referred, in particular, to certain provisions of the Law on mobilization, No. 1192-XV of 4 July 2002, the Law on the requisitioning of goods and services in the public interest, No. 1352-XV of 11 October 2002, and the government decision to approve regulations on the mobilization at the workplace, No. 751 of 24 June 2003, under which the central and local authorities, as well as military bodies, can exact compulsory labour from the population under certain conditions as a means of mobilizing and using labour for purposes of the development of the national economy. Thus, section 3(b) of the Law on the requisitioning of goods and services in the public interest referred to above stipulates that one of the aims of such requisitioning is to create conditions for the good functioning of the national economy and public institutions.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(b) of the Convention prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour “as a method of mobilizing and using labour for purposes of economic development” and expresses the hope that the Government will provide, in its next report, information on measures taken or envisaged in order to bring legislation into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee is also addressing a request on certain other points directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to its previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

1. The Committee again requests the Government to supply, with its next report, copies of the following texts: Code on Administrative Offences, Code on Execution of Penal Sentences, Law on Public Service, Law on the Organization and Conducting of Assemblies and Meetings, Law on the Press and Other Media, as well as any provisions governing labour discipline in merchant shipping.

2. Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee previously noted the provisions of article 32 of the Constitution concerning freedom of opinion and expression, according to which "the law shall forbid and prosecute all actions aimed at denying and slandering the State or the people", as well as "incitement to discrimination, territorial separatism, public violence or other actions threatening constitutional order", and requested the Government to provide information on any penal provisions punishing such actions and on their application in practice.

The Committee notes that, under section 285(1) of the new Criminal Code, "organization or leadership of large-scale disturbances" is punishable with deprivation of freedom for a term of up to ten years (which involves compulsory prison labour). It also notes that section 346 of the Criminal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment for a term of up to three years for "inflaming of the national, racial or religious enmity".

The Committee points out, referring to the explanations contained in paragraphs 133-140 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence or incite to the use of violence, armed resistance or an uprising. But sanctions involving compulsory labour are incompatible with the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of non-violent views that are critical of government policy and the established political system. Since political opinions and views are often expressed not only through different communications media, but also at various kinds of meetings and manifestations, the prohibition of certain kinds of meetings by way of sanctioning "large-scale disturbances" or "violation of public order" may give rise to political coercion falling within the scope of the Convention.

The Committee notes that the above provisions of the Criminal Code provide for penal sanctions involving compulsory labour in circumstances defined in terms which are wide enough to give rise to questions about their application in practice. It therefore requests the Government to supply, with its next report, copies of the court decisions which could define or illustrate the scope of these provisions, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

3. Article 1(c). The Committee notes that, under section 329 of the new Criminal Code, the non-performance or improper performance by an official of his duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm to legitimate rights and interests of persons or organizations, or to public interests, is punishable by deprivation of freedom for a term of up to three years (which involves compulsory prison labour). In order to enable the Committee to ascertain whether this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, please supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

4. Article 1(d). The Committee notes that section 358(1) of the new Criminal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) for the organization of or active participation in group actions breaking violently public order and resulting in disturbances of operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations. Similarly, under section 285(1) referred to in paragraph 2 above, "organization or leadership of large scale disturbances resulting in the obstruction of normal operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations" is punishable with deprivation of freedom for a term of up to ten years.

Referring to its direct request addressed to the Government under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by Moldova, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the explanations in paragraphs 123-132 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, in which it pointed out that it is not incompatible with the Convention to impose penalties (even involving an obligation to perform labour) for participation in strikes in essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population), or for participation in strikes in breach of freely concluded collective agreements, or in the situations of force majeure. However, the Committee notes that section 369 of the new Labour Code imposes restrictions on the right to strike (enforceable with penal sanctions in accordance with section 370) in a wider range of circumstances, particularly by defining in an unduly extensive manner categories of workers prohibited from participating in strikes, which is not in conformity with the Convention.

The Committee therefore hopes that measures will be taken to ensure that the above provisions imposing restrictions on the right to strike enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory prison labour are limited in scope to essential services in the strict sense of the term, or to the cases of force majeure, or to the situations where the parties concerned agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration, and that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for participation in peaceful strikes in other services. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

Article 1(b) of the Convention. Mobilizing labour by state authorities. The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. The Committee previously noted a communication received in February 2004 from the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Republic of Moldova (CSRM), which contains observations concerning the application of the forced labour Conventions Nos. 105 and 29, ratified by the Republic of Moldova. The CSRM referred, in particular, to legal provisions under which the central and local authorities, as well as military bodies, can exact compulsory labour from the population under certain conditions, as a means of mobilizing and using labour for purposes of the development of the national economy. The Committee noted that this communication was sent to the Government in March 2004, for any comments it might wish to make on the matters raised therein. Since no such comments have been received from the Government so far, the Committee reiterates its hope that the Government will not fail to supply its comments with its next report, so as to enable the Committee to examine them at its next session.

The Committee is also addressing a request on certain other points directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

1. Referring to its observation under the Convention, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in reply to its earlier comments. It also notes the adoption of the new Criminal Code (Law No. 985-XV of 18 April 2002) and the Labour Code (Law No. 154-XV of 28 March 2003). The Committee again requests the Government to supply, with its next report, copies of the following texts: Code on Administrative Offences, Code on Execution of Penal Sentences, Law on Public Service, Law on the Organization and Conducting of Assemblies and Meetings, Law on the Press and Other Media, as well as any provisions governing labour discipline in merchant shipping.

2. Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee previously noted the provisions of article 32 of the Constitution concerning freedom of opinion and expression, according to which "the law shall forbid and prosecute all actions aimed at denying and slandering the State or the people", as well as "incitement to discrimination, territorial separatism, public violence or other actions threatening constitutional order", and requested the Government to provide information on any penal provisions punishing such actions and on their application in practice.

The Committee notes that, under section 285(1) of the new Criminal Code, "organization or leadership of large-scale disturbances" is punishable with deprivation of freedom for a term of up to ten years (which involves compulsory prison labour). It also notes that section 346 of the Criminal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment for a term of up to three years for "inflaming of the national, racial or religious enmity".

The Committee points out, referring to the explanations contained in paragraphs 133-140 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence or incite to the use of violence, armed resistance or an uprising. But sanctions involving compulsory labour are incompatible with the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of non-violent views that are critical of government policy and the established political system. Since political opinions and views are often expressed not only through different communications media, but also at various kinds of meetings and manifestations, the prohibition of certain kinds of meetings by way of sanctioning "large-scale disturbances" or "violation of public order" may give rise to political coercion falling within the scope of the Convention.

The Committee notes that the above provisions of the Criminal Code provide for penal sanctions involving compulsory labour in circumstances defined in terms which are wide enough to give rise to questions about their application in practice. It therefore requests the Government to supply, with its next report, copies of the court decisions which could define or illustrate the scope of these provisions, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether they are applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

3. Article 1(c). The Committee notes that, under section 329 of the new Criminal Code, the non-performance or improper performance by an official of his duties as the result of a negligent attitude, causing substantial harm to legitimate rights and interests of persons or organizations, or to public interests, is punishable by deprivation of freedom for a term of up to three years (which involves compulsory prison labour). In order to enable the Committee to ascertain whether this provision is not used as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of the Convention, please supply information on its application in practice, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

4. Article 1(d). The Committee notes that section 358(1) of the new Criminal Code provides for sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) for the organization of or active participation in group actions breaking violently public order and resulting in disturbances of operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations. Similarly, under section 285(1) referred to in paragraph 2 above, "organization or leadership of large scale disturbances resulting in the obstruction of normal operation of transport or work of enterprises, institutions or organizations" is punishable with deprivation of freedom for a term of up to ten years.

Referring to its direct request addressed to the Government under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by Moldova, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the explanations in paragraphs 123-132 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, in which it pointed out that it is not incompatible with the Convention to impose penalties (even involving an obligation to perform labour) for participation in strikes in essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population), or for participation in strikes in breach of freely concluded collective agreements, or in the situations of force majeure. However, the Committee notes that section 369 of the new Labour Code imposes restrictions on the right to strike (enforceable with penal sanctions in accordance with section 370) in a wider range of circumstances, particularly by defining in an unduly extensive manner categories of workers prohibited from participating in strikes, which is not in conformity with the Convention.

The Committee therefore hopes that measures will be taken to ensure that the above provisions imposing restrictions on the right to strike enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory prison labour are limited in scope to essential services in the strict sense of the term, or to the cases of force majeure, or to the situations where the parties concerned agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration, and that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed for participation in peaceful strikes in other services. It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes a communication received in February 2004 from the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Republic of Moldova, which contains observations concerning the application of the forced labour Conventions Nos. 105 and 29, ratified by the Republic of Moldova. It notes that this communication was sent to the Government in March 2004, for any comments it might wish to make on the matters raised therein. The Committee observes that no such comments have been received from the Government so far. It therefore hopes that the Government will not fail to supply its comments with its next report, so as to enable the Committee to examine them at its next session.

The Committee is also addressing a request on certain other points directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

1. The Committee has noted the information supplied by the Government in reply to its previous direct request. It has also noted the comments by the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Republic of Moldova, made in a communication dated 21 December 2000, concerning the application of the forced labour Conventions Nos. 29 and 105, ratified by the Republic of Moldova, as well as the Government’s reply to these comments. The Committee has noted the unions’ statement that there is no supervisory mechanism in the country that could ensure effective supervision of the application of the ratified ILO Conventions, including the forced labour Conventions Nos. 29 and 105. It has also noted the Government’s indications that the new Law on Labour Inspection was approved by Parliament in May 2001 and the new draft Labour Code had passed the first reading in Parliament. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide information on the developments as regards the entry into force of the Law on Labour Inspection and the adoption of the new Labour Code, as well as information on practical functioning of the labour inspection and other bodies responsible for the supervision of the ratified ILO Conventions in the Republic of Moldova, in connection with the application of the forced labour Conventions.

2. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the provisions of article 32 of the Constitution concerning freedom of opinion and expression. It noted that, under paragraph 3 of this article, "the law shall forbid and prosecute all actions aimed at denying and slandering the State or the people", as well as "incitement to discrimination, territorial separatism, public violence or other actions threatening constitutional order". The Committee requested the Government to provide information on any penal provisions punishing such actions and on their application in practice. The Government refers in its report to sections 67, 67(7), 68 and 71 of the Criminal Code punishing with imprisonment such acts as incitement to a coup d’état, to crimes against security of the State or to violation of territorial integrity of the country, violation of national or racial equality and propaganda of war. The Government indicates that, according to the information received from the Ministry of Justice, there have been no judicial cases concerning violation of these provisions in 2000-01. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application in practice of these Criminal Code provisions, as well as other provisions punishing such acts as "slandering the State or the people" or "other acts threatening constitutional order".

3. The Committee previously noted the provisions of article 41 of the Constitution concerning the freedom of political association. It noted that, under paragraph 4 of this article, parties and other socio-political organizations may be declared unconstitutional if "engaged in fighting against political pluralism, the principles of the rule of law, the sovereignty and independence or territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova". The Committee has noted the Government’s indication in its report received in January 2002 that, during the period of 2000-01, the Ministry of Justice has registered no cases of dissolution or suspension of activities of a political party or any other socio-political organization because of violation of constitutional provisions. It has also noted that section 40(4) of the Law on Associations, of 17 May 1996, provides for a liquidation of an association by a court decision in case of inciting a social, racial, national or religious hatred or violation of citizens’ rights, and section 43 of the same law provides for administrative, penal or other liability for violation of its provisions. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of these provisions in practice, supplying copies of court decisions defining or illustrating their scope. It also repeats its request for copies of the legislation governing political parties and religious groups.

4. The Committee has noted with interest from the Government’s report received in January 2002 that a draft law on the settlement of collective labour disputes is under examination by Parliament. It requests the Government to supply a copy of the law as soon as it is adopted. Referring also to its direct request addressed to the Government under Convention No. 87, the Committee repeats its request for information on any provisions restricting the right to strike which may be enforced with sanctions involving an obligation to work.

5. The Committee has noted that a number of legislative texts indicated by the Government as annexed to the report have not been received in the ILO. It therefore hopes that the Government will supply copies of these texts with its next report and that they will include the following: Criminal Code, Code on Administrative Offences, Code on Execution of Penal Sanctions, Law on Public Service, Law on the Settlement of Collective Labour Disputes, Law on the Organization and Conducting of Assemblies and Meetings, Law on Political Parties, Law on the Press and Other Media, Law on Religious Cults.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

1. The Committee has noted with interest the information provided by the Government in its first report on the application of the Convention, as well as the comments made by the Council of the General Federation of Trade Unions of the Republic of Moldova and the National Confederation of Employers of the Republic of Moldova. It would be grateful if the Government would supply, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force in the following fields: updated and consolidated texts of the Criminal Code and the Correctional Labour Code; the laws governing peaceful assemblies, meetings and demonstrations; the law governing the civil service; and any provisions governing labour discipline in transport services or other branches of the economy.

2. The Committee has noted the provisions of article 32 of the Constitution concerning freedom of opinion and expression. It has noted that, under paragraph 3 of this article, "the law shall forbid and prosecute all actions aimed at denying and slandering the State or the people", as well as "incitement to discrimination, territorial separatism, public violence or other actions threatening constitutional order". The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the law referred to in paragraph 3 of article 32 of the Constitution, as well as information on its application in practice, including information on any penal sanctions which may be applicable in case of violation of its provisions. Please also supply copies of the legislation concerning the press and media.

3. The Committee has noted the provisions of article 41 of the Constitution concerning the freedom of political association. It has noted that, under paragraph 4 of this article, parties and other socio-political organizations may be declared unconstitutional if "engaged in fighting against political pluralism, the principles of the rule of law, the sovereignty and independence or territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova". The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of legislation adopted under this constitutional provision, as well as, more generally, the legislation governing associations, political parties and religious groups, and any information on its application in practice.

4. The Committee notes with interest from the Government's report that a draft new law on the settling of collective labour disputes is being prepared and hopes that the Government will supply a copy of the law once adopted.

5. The Committee has noted that, under article 45, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, the law will establish the conditions for the exercise of the right to strike, "as well as the responsibility involved in the illegal start of strikes". It would be grateful if the Government would supply a copy of the law referred to in this article, as well as information on any provisions restricting the right to strike which may be enforced with sanctions involving an obligation to work.