Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1990, Publication: 77th ILC session (1990)

A Government representative stated that since the Minister of Labour had recently made a presentation in a Plenary sitting of this International Labour Conference concerning important measures that had been taken since the revolution of December 1989, particularly in the labour field, he would limit himself to replying to the observations made by the Committee of Experts on the present Convention. Regarding compulsory registration with the Directorate of Labour and Social Security and allocation to a workplace, the Government representative stated that Act No. 25 of 1976 which conflicted with the Convention had been one of the first laws repealed after the revolution. In addition to the drafting of the new Constitution, draft laws particularly important for the field of labour and aiming at the complete elimination of old, unjust and arbitrary laws were being prepared. The Government intended to adopt a new labour code, as well as rules concerning paid leave, recruitment and the indexation of wages, which would be the exclusive responsibility of enterprises. With respect to the organisation and operation of State socialist units (provisions obliging a worker who left a unit to take up employment in another unit to apply to the executive organ and the trade union body of the unit he was leaving for a report on his activities), section 71-8 of Act No. 24 of 29 December 1981 was no longer in force. Moreover, Decree No. 54/1975, which provided for the assignment of work to young university graduates had been repealed by Decree No. 14 of 10 January 1990. Also, legislative Decree No. 22 of 12 January 1990 repealed Decree No. 9 of 1983 concerning work for the national economy by soldiers and retired career military personnel. Concerning point 3 of the observation of the Committee of Experts concerning the obligation to have the approval of the general assembly to be able to leave a co-operative, fundamental changes had occurred: handicraft co-operatives and supply and credit co-operatives were subject to new organisational and operational laws (Decrees Nos. 66 and 67 of 12/990) and agricultural co-operatives were engaged in the process of fundamental transformation following the adoption of Legislative Decree No. 42/1990 which distributed - as private farms - 3 million hectares of land - about 30 per cent of the country's arable land - to peasants. A large number of agricultural co-operatives had therefore been eliminated or were being reorganised into farms, joint stock companies or other forms of ownership recently adopted. As regarded point 4 of the observation (concerning Decree No. 153 of 1970 respecting groups of persons leading a parasitic or anarchical way of life), the speaker mentioned that he had brought with him the Romanian language versions of all the laws adopted on the subject since the revolution of 1989. He thanked the ILO and the direct contacts mission which had recently visited Romania for assisting the Government in a clearer formulation of the ideas needed to ensure the conformity of the national laws with ILO instruments. He stated that the Government would again ask the assistance of the Office during the drafting stages of the new labour laws with a view to ensuring that they conform with ILO Conventions. The Government representative stated that the Romanian Government would communicate a detailed report for the period ending 30 June 1990.

A Workers' member of France had taken note of the indications provided by the Government representative on the legislative provisions repealed and replaced by texts which took account of the concerns expressed by the supervisory bodies. Although recognising the difficulties which the Government would certainly have to confront in the implementation of the laws which it had recently adopted, he hoped that Romanian workers would, in practice, be completely free to leave their employment and to find new work in other enterprises without being obliged to obtain a report on their behaviour in the enterprise which they were leaving. Given the current difficulties in the development of trade unionism in the country, the speaker hoped to have from the Government more explicit guarantees on the matter. He noted that the legislative texts adopted on the subject would be communicated after being translated. He stressed, however, that the factual situation was the most important aspect. Taking into account the recent events in Romania and the attitude of the Government towards students and workers, and given that certain workers had been used by the Government to put down demonstrations which, in other democratic countries, would have never been considered a law and order problem, the speaker expressed doubts as to the real willingness of the Romanian authorities to respect the letter and spirit of the amended laws. He expressed hope that the attitude of the Romanian authorities would correspond to the undertakings made before the present Committee and, for this reason, had to insist that this Committee continue to monitor closely the application of the Convention, as well as of other instruments which had been the subject of observations by the Committee. Unfortunately, based on currently unfolding events, it was not possible to say if the good intentions of the Government would find expression in reality.

The Employers' members noted with satisfaction certain information presented by the Government representative which confirmed the indications already communicated to the Committee of Experts, notably as concerned the implementation of human rights principles and freedom of association in Romania. Great efforts were indispensable to change the previous legal provisions and the factual situation. A new Constitution was in the process of being drafted and they hoped that it would contain all the necessary guarantees to apply the principles of human rights and freedoms. The Employers' members asked that the various laws which repealed and replaced old provisions not in conformity with ILO Conventions be sent to the Office so that they could be examined. The Employers' members made particular reference in this regard to the decree concerning persons leading a parasitic or anarchical way of life. This issue had been a problem in a number of Eastern European countries for many years; they had been abused by the authorities to harass political dissidents. It was relatively easy to repeal these provisions, as had been done by the Romanian Government, but - considering that these practices have been in general use for many years - this did not necessarily mean that there had been a change in practice; and it was difficult to change ingrained behaviour. The Employers' members therefore asked whether the Government should not take measures, apart from the legislative amendments, aimed specifically at eliminating the effects of old laws and introducing real changes in practice. As the Employers' members had already repeatedly stated, the ILO was not satisfied with progress made on paper only, but hoped for concrete advances in the working and living conditions of human beings. They therefore insisted that all the changes mentioned during the present Committee's discussions be communicated in the next report and that changes be made not only in legislation but also in practice. The Employers' members added that the violation of ILO Conventions, and particularly of this Covnention, had a close relationship to discrimination for political reasons; the same criteria were used. As concerned Convention No. 111, a Commission of Inquiry was now studying the situation in Romania but there existed a direct link between these two Conventions as they both concerned the violation of fundamental freedom. The Employers' members were always cautious when cases of progress yet to be achieved were mentioned, as there was always the possibility that remnants of old thinking and behaviour remained. They therefore invited the Government to continue to provide reports to the ILO so that this Committee could examine how the changes had been manifested in reality. They hoped that these changes would be substantive - as assured by the Government representative - and not purely formal.

The Government representative indicated that he had listened with great interest to the remarks, doubts and criticisms expressed by the members of this Committee. However, change in a country which had experienced 40 years of dictatorship was not an easy thing; everyone knew that the installation of democracy was difficult. During the first days of its coming to power, the Government had made many efforts to bring the national legislation into conformity with the international instruments which Romania had signed and was obliged to respect. It should not be forgotten that only 180 days had passed since the events of December 1989, the first measures that the Government had taken in this regard - amending the laws most clearly contrary to ILO Conventions - were undertaken while battle was still being waged in Bucharest. Moreover the new Government eliminated all the reservations which had existed vis-à-vis certain international instruments, with a view to coming into line with other democratic countries. The speaker assured the present Committee that every effort would be made so that the laws would followed by practical and concrete effects. His country was in a difficult economic situation; it was not possible in 180 days to satisfy all the requests of the Committee of Experts and of the speakers who had intervened in this debate. Lastly, he assured this Committee that the Government would do its utmost to conform with the letter and spirit of the requests of the Committee of Experts, and to implement in full the laws which it had adopted.

A Workers' member of France stated that he was aware of the difficulties resulting from 40 years of dictatorship but repeated that the methods used over the past few weeks by the Romanian Government did not seem to be a departure from those previously used. He associated himself with the Employers' members in insisting that the Commission of Inquiry, set up by the Governing Body of the ILO to investigate the complaint presented in 1989, take account in its work of the concerns related to the application of Conventions Nos. 29 and 111.

The Workers' members associated themselves with the comments made by the Employers' members concerning the Constitution currently being drafted. As for the other points mentioned in the report of the Committee of Experts, the Workers' members insisted on obtaining the new legislative texts, as well as precise information on changes in practice, so that the Committee of Experts could thoroughly examine the case. They stated that, in view of the events of the past few weeks, doubts persist on the application of the new legislation in practice: it was therefore very important to obtain as detailed information as possible.

A Government member of the Ukrainian SSR, on behalf of the group of Central and Eastern European countries, stated that the discussion of the application of this Convention in Romania had been both positive and candid and showed the goodwill expressed by the Government representative. The Government representative had given a complete and convincing account of the radical changes which had occurred and continued in the country in the process of reconstruction and in the introduction of social and economic reforms, as pointed out by the Employers' members. A new Constitution and new legislative texts improving the guarantees of human rights were being drafted. As concerned the doubts expressed on the application in practice of standards ratified by Romania, he thought that this Committee should take into account the fact that the situation in the country was entirely new and that it was not possible for there to be complete improvement within just 180 days no matter how well intentional a country was. Account therefore had to be taken of these considerations, given the goodwill shown by the Government representative of Romania.

A Workers' member of the United States stated that he understood that the Government could not accomplish everything in one day but stressed very clearly that the amendment of legislative texts had to be accompanied by real changes in actual practice, as had been remarked by both the Employers' and Workers' members. One should insist that the Government be vigilant and take scrupulously all measures necessary to eliminate vestiges of past practices.

The Government representative stated that he understood apprehensions of the members of this Committee but assured them that his Government would do its utmost to ensure that laws would be translated into practice. Lastly, his Government would send a detailed report in November 1990 on all the questions which had been raised.

The Committee noted with interest the detailed information communicated by the Government representative. It welcomed the changes in the legislation reported and trusted that the relevant texts would be sent shortly. It stressed, however, the necessity to change not only the legislation, but also the practice. In this respect, this Committee was concerned about what had recently happened in Bucharest. It recognised the difficulties to which the Government had referred in changing profoundly a society which had known a dictatorial reign for 40 years. It firmly hoped that the Government would be able to overcome these difficulties and it looked forward to further information showing this in reports supplied to the competent bodies of the ILO.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1988, Publication: 75th ILC session (1988)

A Government representative said that he could only repeat, in a more explicit manner, what the Government had stated on many occasions in reply to the questions raised by the Committee of Experts. This had also been the case last year in the Conference Committee. For this reason he did not agree that the Government did not communicate with the Committee of Experts. In the first place, he stated that Act No. 24 respecting the recruitment and placement of labour and Act No. 25 respecting the assignment of able-bodied persons to useful work, both of 1976, could not be considered to be legislation imposing an obligation to work, under the menace of penalties, on all able-bodied citizens. Under the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 8, paragraph 3(f), and of Convention No. 29 (Article 2, paragraph 2(b), work or service which form part of the normal civic obligations of the citizens of a fully self-governing country could not be considered to be forced labour. In Romania, the right to work and the general duty to work were basic constitutional principles of the State. Since the exploitation of one human being by another had been abolished long ago, work which represented an honourable duty for every able-bodied citizen had become the sole source of existence for all social classes and for the full expression of each individual. These principles were enshrined in a more detailed manner in the Labour Code, which provided as follows in section 1, paragraph (2): "The workers, both as producers of material and spiritual values and as owners of the means of production and the whole national wealth, have a right and a duty to engage in a type of work that is useful to society, since the welfare and interests of each are linked organically with the welfare and development of society as a whole". Section 6 provided: "Any form of appropriation of another's labour and all manifestations of social parasitism are prohibited as being incompatible with the socialist system and with socialist ethical principles and equity". In his country, there was no work without bread and no bread without work. Therefore the provisions of the 1976 Acts did not have forced labour as their purpose; rather they were a means of encouraging and helping certain able-bodies persons carry out their elementary civic duties. Moreover, the provisions of Act No. 25 governed the placement of individuals living at the expense of other persons -- social parasites to whom work had been offered many times; theses provisions contained a message of education and prevention for those who found themselves in such situations. Secondly, refusal to report at the workplace indicated by the court was never followed by sanctions; no coercive measure was taken in regard to the persons concerned. In the 12 years since the application of those Acts, there had been no case of a person being subject to a penalty. Thus there was no obligation to work under menace of a penalty. In the third place, a person falling within the scope of Act No. 25 who accepted placement in a workplace indicated by the court had to conclude a contract of employment with the employer. This voluntary act by the two parties was governed by section 64 of the Labour Code, as follows: "Appointment is effected by the formulation of a written individual contract of employment". Signing this contract was a voluntary act, without any obligation. No legislative provision in Romania required a person to conclude a contact of employment. In the fourth place, a contract of employment, once concluded, was governed by section 135 of the Labour Code, which provided that the contract could be terminated on the initiative of the person employed. Thus a person who was subject to Act No. 25 could freely leave the enterprise the day after the contract had been signed. The Government was presenting these arguments following consultations with the Legislative Council, the Central Council of the General Confederation of Romanian Trade Unions and the division of managers of economic units in the Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Acts Nos. 24 and 25 of 1976 did not violate the spirit of the Convention. On the contrary, they contributed to ensuring full employment and facilitated, by purely educational means, the incorporation in useful work of persons who, in increasingly rare cases, were still straying from the Government's general principles on life and society. Nevertheless, since the cases which were the subject of this Convention had become increasingly rare -- in 1987, for example, there were only 23 cases -- the Government had reached the conclusion to propose in the legislative programme for the next period the revision of these two Acts, in the light of the observations made by the Committee of Experts. The Government representative reaffirmed his Government's openness to dialogue and stated that he would inform the Government again of the opinions expressed by the Committee of Experts on this issue.

The Workers' members with the Worker member of the United States as their spokesman in this case recalled the background of the observation made by the Committee of Experts, which had appeared consistently since 1985. By virtue of Acts Nos. 24 and 25 of 1976, read together, all able-bodied people over 16 years of age who were not in training or otherwise gainfully employed were obliged to register and be placed in employment and to present themselves for the employment at the workplace assigned. Measures of persuasion were provided for; if refusal to take up employment was persistent, a court order could compel the persons to take up a specific post which they could not leave before one year, under menace of sanctions. The Government had repeated that in fact these sanctions were not enforced; if that were the case, then the legislation requiring it should be repealed. The Committee of Experts simply did not share the Government's view that this situation involved performance of a normal civic obligation under Article 2, paragraph 2, of the present Convention. Referring to paragraph 45 of the 1979 general survey of the Committee of Experts, the Workers' members noted that this exception must be strictly interpreted; it had a much more limited scope than that suggested by the Government and could not be invoked to justify resort to forms of service or compulsory labour contrary to the present Convention. The Government representative had contradicted himself by saying that the sanctions were not invoked but that there were about 23 cases still pending. The Government representative had, however, also said that amendments would be proposed soon to comply with the Committee of Experts' observations. This was a new development which had long been lacking. If this were a true promise of remedial action, it was desirable to have a more detailed assurance from the Government.

The Employers' members corrected their earlier remark with regard to an absence of discussion; that had referred to 1986, not 1987. Regarding the present Convention, they reviewed the provisions of the two Acts cited by the Committee of Experts. The Government representative had mentionned the right to work, which was seen at the same time as an obligation to work. As long as that was considered a moral obligation, the Employers' members could accept it. But where that moral obligation was made binding in law, it became forced labour, and it remained forced labour when words from the animal kingdom -- such as parasites -- were used to describe people. All societies had problems with certain individuals, but the Employers' members questioned whether they should be solved through forced labour. The Committee of Experts had repeatedly observed that the legislation referred to provided for forced labour and therefore had to be amended. If there were no violation of the Convention, the Government would not be considering the possibility of amending or revising the legislation. Since the statement to this effect had been expressed perhaps somewhat more cautiously than usual, the Employers' members requested a clearer statement of whether the Government was indeed prepared to revise and amend the provisions.

The Government representative reiterated that there was no obligation to work. The duty to work was a general civic duty. No sanctions were applied; all measures were educational in nature. The Government had been repeating these arguments but the Committee of Experts had not understood them. It was for this reason that amendments were being considered. The Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Justice and the Legislative Council, with the agreement of the workers' end employers' organisations, had decided to propose placing the matter of revising this legislation on the agenda for the next Five-Year Plan.

The Workers' members agreed with the statement made by the Worker member of the United States and the Employers' members. They thought that the Government's reply was still too nebulous. Year after year there had been a clear violation of the Convention. Civic duties could not be invoked for imposing any sort of employment whatsoever; they had to be construed in a much more limited manner. The argument that the other social partners were in accord carried no weight in the face of violations. They hoped that the Government truly desired to bring legislation and practice into conformity with the Convention ratified. They asked for a more specific statement on that point and hoped the Committee would have the occasion to review the situation at next year's Conference.

The Workers' members with the Worker member of United States continuing as their spokesman agreed that a clear commitment to remedial action by way of repeal or amendment had not been forthcoming from the Government. Its statement had been vague. The Committee of Experts' observation in this case, which involved a very important Convention, had been clear and decisive. Unfortunately, the Government representative had gone back to saying that these were civic duties, not compulsory labour. There had been no assurance or indication that the Government accepted the Committee of Experts' conclusion that the legislation was incompatible with the Convention. The Workers' members had hoped for the Government's promise that it would re-examine the matter. The Committee of Experts' conclusion on the matter had been unequivocal. Everyone lauded the principle of full employment, but it had to be freely chosen and not forced at the expense of penal sanctions. In the absence of assurances by the Government, the Workers' members considered that this case deserved to be noted in a special paragraph as a matter of extreme importance.

The Government member of Bulgaria thanked the Government representative of Romania for the clarifications he had provided. The Government representative has stated that in practice these provisions were not applied. The Government representative had also said that a revision of the legislation was envisaged so as to remove the possibility of forced labour. These statements had demonstrated the Romanian Government's willingness to engage in a dialogue which should be continued.

The Employers' members agreed with the Workers' members that it was in line with their arguments that the case should be mentioned in a special paragraph, given the lack of progress up to now, but the conclusions should also express the hope that in future, the improvements which had been under discussion for so long could appear in the report of the Committee of Experts.

The Government member of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic stated that, having listened to various viewpoints expressed, he though that the role of labour and the attitude towards labour as a social value in the eyes of the legislature were involved here. In contrast to other speakers, his Government believed that the statement made by the Romanian Government had given reason to believe that there would be a revision of their legislation. Before considering a special paragraph, there should be a reconciliation of views based on a constructive dialogue.

The Workers' members said they had just heard two statements that were much clearer than the reply first given by the Government. They called upon the Government representative to restate his position and to report to his Government that legislative changes were necessary and that they should be acted upon.

The Government representative repeated that the conclusion had been reached that a repeal or an amendment of the laws referred to should be proposed and would be proposed for the legislative programme in the five-year period coming up. This conclusion had been reached not only because of observations by the Committee of Experts, but also in light of analysis done by the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Justice and other bodies. He thought that this provided a clear reply.

The Worker member of the United States, speaking on behalf of the Workers' members, said that that was the sort of definitive assurance that he had been hoping to hear. The Workers' members wanted the Committee's conclusions to reflect the assurance that amendments would be sought and that a discussion would take place in the Committee next year. On this condition, they were willing to withdraw the request for a special paragraph.

The Government representative wished the record to reflect that the promise made was based on legal obligations in his country. He had stated that the legislative programme would be for the years 1991 to 1995. Thus next year he would only be able to give a reply concerning proposals for amendments. In his country it was not possible to include the revision of a law in the legislative programme from one year to the next.

The Committee noted the indications provided by the Government representative and the discussion that had taken place. The Committee noted that important divergencies continued to exist between legislation and practice and the Convention. It noted the Government's assurance that the legislation referred to is to be reexamined in the light of the comments of the Committee of Experts and urged the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the Convention and to supply full and timely information on the action taken so that it could be considered next year.

The Government representative wished the record to reflect that the promise made was based on legal obligations in his country. He had stated that the legislative programme would be for the years 1991 to 1995. Thus next year he would only be able to give a reply concerning proposals for amendments. In his country it was not possible to include the revision of a law in the legislative programme from one year to the next.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1987, Publication: 73rd ILC session (1987)

A Government representative said that Act No. 24 of 1976 respecting the recruitment and placement of labour and Act No. 25 of 1976 respecting the assignment of able-bodied persons to useful work could not be considered as legislation providing for compulsory labour under menace of penalty for all able-bodied citizens, an obligation which would be incompatible with the Convention. It was their view that work or service forming part of normal civil obligations in the country could not be considered as forced or compulsory labour. In Romania, the right and the duty to work were fundamental constitutional principles and therefore the provisions of the above-mentioned Laws could not be considered or interpreted as having forced labour as their objective but rather as aiding certain able-bodied persons to carry out their elementary civil duties. In conclusion, he would like to inform the Committee that as soon as there were amendments to the legislation under consideration the Government would inform it of the measures taken. He added and stressed that refusal to appear at the workplace was never sanctioned by penalties. The principal objective of Law No. 25 of 1976 was persuasion and not punishment.

The Employers' members recalled that they had not been able to discuss this case in 1986 because Romania had not appeared before the Committee. They were thus once again returning to normality. The comments of the Committee of Experts on the 1976 Laws were quite clear because a situation had been created where all abled-bodied persons were obliged to work if they did not volunteer to do so of their own free will. As the Experts had clearly pointed out, this was not in conformity with the Convention. The Government had indicated that this was only a question of normal civic duties, permissible under the Convention, but the provision of the Convention to which it had referred was an exception clause, and exceptions had to be interpreted on a narrow rather than a broad basis. The Government had indicated that instructions to carry out a certain job were in fact never followed by sanctions if the person did not report for duty. If this were the case, there was no doubt that it should at least be possible to indicate this clearly in the legislation. As things stood at present, sanctions could in fact be used as a threat to extract labour. If the sanctions which might follow a refusal to report for duty were removed, this would amount to some progress.

The Workers' members welcomed the dialogue which was taking place with Romania. One difficulty with regard to Convention No. 29, arose from the co-existence of a right to work and a duty to work which could nevertheless be construed in different ways. Although persuasion and encouragement to work were acceptable-in particular for young persons-it was unacceptable that certain people were considered as parasites and subject to compulsory labour. Whatever the country and system, the strict requirements of Convention No. 29 had to be respected and, given the penal sanctions or formal obligations which were incompatible with the Convention, the Committee-together with the Committee of Experts-should continue to urge the Government to re-examine the possibility of amending the Laws in question.

The Government representative thanked the Employers' and Workers' member for their interventions and said he would transmit to his Government the observations and discussion that had taken place in this Committee.

The Workers' members recalled that in the Government's representative's first intervention, mention had been made of changes to the legislation and hoped that their proposal for this would accordingly be followed.

The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative. The Committee noted, however, that the matters referred to in the comments of the Committee of Experts concerned serious problems in the application of the Convention. The Committee expressed its hope that the Government would take the necessary measures when the legislation was next reviewed to ensure conformity with the Convention both in legislation and in practice, and that the Government would submit full information in this respect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Trafficking in persons. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the adoption of Act No. 678 of 2001 concerning the prevention and combating of trafficking in human beings, and also the various measures taken by the Government to combat trafficking in persons. It noted in particular the adoption of a national strategy and a plan of action to combat trafficking comprising different components (prevention, including identification of vulnerable groups; awareness raising; improving the social and economic situation of vulnerable persons; assistance to victims; legislative reform; international cooperation). In its latest report, the Government supplies statistics and information on the action taken to implement the various components of this plan of action. The Committee notes in particular the development of the integrated system for the surveillance of trafficking in persons and of a centralized system for the collection of data on trafficking victims; the strengthening of inter-institutional cooperation through periodic meetings intended to analyse and evaluate the activities devised by the institutions responsible for preventing trafficking and assisting victims; the launch of four public awareness-raising campaigns and of a telephone helpline for assistance; the establishment of the national guidance mechanism aimed at identifying and directing victims towards the competent services in order to strengthen the effectiveness of the measures intended to protect and assist them, and the holding of training workshops for local police officers and rural area police with regard to this mechanism and the national legislation. The Government also points out that, in 2007, a total of 223 joint investigation teams (composed of personnel from the police and the Public Prosecutor’s Office) were established, and launched 160 judicial proceedings in which 2,235 persons were involved. Of the 2,235 persons investigated, a total of 398 were prosecuted. The Government indicates that, in 2008, a total of 187 persons were convicted of trafficking in persons, with 64 of them sentenced to imprisonment of one to five years, 76 to imprisonment of five to ten years, six to imprisonment of ten to 15 years, and 16 received suspended sentences.

The Committee notes all these measures which bear witness to the Government’s commitment to combat trafficking of persons. It encourages the Government to pursue its efforts, in view of the complexity of this transnational phenomenon and the number of victims concerned. The Committee requests the Government to continue to supply information in its future reports on the measures taken to implement the national strategy to combat trafficking, stating the difficulties faced by the authorities in this regard and the solutions found. The Committee in particular requests the Government to indicate the manner in which, firstly, it ensures the protection of victims, inasmuch as such protection can contribute to the effectiveness of investigations and prosecutions against the perpetrators of trafficking and, secondly, it promotes the reintegration of victims of trafficking, particularly those who return to the country. The Government is also requested to continue to supply information on the judicial proceedings instituted against perpetrators and the sentences handed down.

Article 2(2)(c). Work exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law. The Committee notes the adoption in July 2009 of a new Penal Code (Act No. 286/2009), a copy of which has been sent by the Government with its report. As regards the obligation to work in prison, the Committee previously noted a contradiction between section 56 of the Penal Code (Penal Code of 1968 as amended), according to which the regime for the implementation of prison sentences is based on the obligation on convicted prisoners to perform useful work, and section 57 of Act No. 275/2006 concerning the implementation of sentences and measures ordered by the judicial authorities in the course of criminal proceedings, according to which persons sentenced to imprisonment who are fit to work may, with their consent, perform work which is related to their qualifications and abilities. In its latest report the Government indicates that section 56 of the Penal Code has been repealed. It also quotes the provisions of section 53(3), under which persons sentenced to imprisonment may give their consent to the performance of useful work. The Committee points out that the provisions of section 53(3) quoted by the Government do not appear to correspond to those of section 53 of the Penal Code adopted in 2009. The Committee therefore requests the Government to specify the provisions of the new Penal Code of 2009 under which work done by persons sentenced to imprisonment is voluntary.

As regards the arrangements for the performance of prison work for private entities, the Committee previously noted that work may be performed in the context of the regime for the provision of services on behalf of an economic operator, individual or association, inside or outside the prison, and that the prison administration may conclude a contract for the provision of services for this purpose (section 60 of aforementioned Act No. 275/2006). In its report, the Government supplies information on the application in practice of Act No. 275/2006. It explains that all prisons have concluded contracts with private operators in order to provide persons sentenced to imprisonment with work. It adds that convicted prisoners who wish to work for an economic operator make their request in writing, and that a committee exists in each prison for selecting candidates. As far as possible, convicted prisoners may choose the type of work or change it if they have the qualifications or skills required for the new type of work. The conditions of work of convicted prisoners approximate as far as possible to those of free workers, and operators must respect the rules relating to the prevention of occupational risks and occupational safety and health. Finally, the Government indicates that the work performed for private economic operators is paid according to rates negotiated between the prison administration and the operator – rates which may not be lower than the national minimum wage. The Committee notes with interest the provisions of Act No. 275/2006 regulating arrangements for the performance of prison work for private operators and also the information sent by the Government in this respect. The Committee requests the Government to send an example of a contract concluded between the prison administration and a private operator and to indicate in its future reports any changes to the arrangements for the performance of prison work on behalf of private operators.

Sentence of community work. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the conditions for the performance of work in the community interest are laid down in Ordinance No. 55/2002. The Committee notes that the penalty of community work prescribed by this Ordinance constitutes an alternative penalty to the payment of a fine. This penalty is pronounced by a judicial body with the consent of the person concerned and the work is performed on behalf of public associations. The Committee requests the Government to clarify whether the penalty of work in the community interest may also constitute an alternative to the penalty of imprisonment and, if so, to specify the provisions which govern it.

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

Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention. Work exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law 1. The Committee notes that, under the terms of article 56 of the Penal Code, the regime for the implementation of sentences of imprisonment is based on the requirement that convicts shall perform useful work … The obligation to work ceases as of 60 years of age for men and 55 years of age for women. The Committee notes in this respect the adoption of Law No. 275/2006 respecting the implementation of penalties and measures ordered by the judicial authorities in the course of criminal proceedings. Under section 57 of this Law, persons convicted to a sentence of imprisonment who are capable of work may, with their agreement, perform work that is related to their qualifications and aptitudes. In its last report on the application of the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), the Government refers to these two provisions (article 56 of the Penal Code and section 57 of Law No. 275/2006) and indicates, after describing the regime of prison labour, that work performed in prison by convicted persons is not compulsory. While noting this statement by the Government, the Committee considers that, as article 56 of the Penal Code still refers to the obligation of convicts to perform work, it would be appropriate, in order to avoid any legal ambiguity, to align this provision of the Penal Code with the relevant provisions of Law No. 275/2006 under which prison labour is not compulsory. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress achieved in this respect.

2. Section 60 of Law No. 275/2006, referred to above, envisages various manners of performing prison labour. The Committee notes in this respect that the work may be performed in the context of the regime for the provision of services on behalf of an economic operator, an association or individual, within or outside the prison, and that the prison administration may conclude a contract for the provision of services for this purpose. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate in its next report whether such contracts have already been concluded between the prison administration and private economic operators. If so, please provide examples of these contracts. The Committee would also be grateful if the Government would provide information on the manner in which the consent of the prisoners is obtained in cases where they work for such operators, as well as on their working conditions and wages.

3. Penalty of community work. The Committee notes that in its last report on the application of Convention No. 105, the Government refers to the penalty of community work, with the indication that this penalty can only be handed down by the courts and solely with the agreement of the offender. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide further information on the modalities for serving this penalty and if it would provide a copy of any relevant text. Please indicate whether this penalty is an alternative to imprisonment and indicate the types of work which may be imposed in the context of this penalty and the institutions entitled to receive persons sentenced to this penalty.

Articles 1(1) and 2(1). Trafficking in persons. The Committee notes the adoption of Law No. 678 of 2001 to prevent and combat trafficking in human beings, which deals with the prevention and combating of trafficking as well as the protection and assistance granted to victims. By virtue of article 12 of this Law, trafficking in persons constitutes a crime that may be punished with between three and 12 years of imprisonment (which may be supplemented under certain circumstances). The Committee further notes that, in a previous report, the Government provided detailed information on this Law and on the various measures that it had taken to combat trafficking. It referred in particular to the adoption of a National Action Plan to Combat Trafficking in Human Beings consisting of various components (prevention, including the identification of vulnerable categories; awareness raising; improvement of the social and economic situation of vulnerable persons; assistance to victims; legislative reforms; international cooperation). The Committee encourages the Government to pursue its action and would be grateful if it would provide fuller information in future reports on the action taken in the context of the National Action Plan to which it referred and the results achieved. Please also indicate the difficulties faced by the authorities in combating trafficking in persons, punishing those responsible and protecting victims. In particular, please provide information on the prosecutions initiated against those responsible.

Applicable legislation. The Committee notes that the Penal Code (Law No. 15/1968) has been amended on numerous occasions since its re-publication in the Official Journal in 1997. It further notes that the Criminal Code which had been adopted in 2004 (Law No. 301/2004) has not entered into force and appears once again to be the subject of debate. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the process of the revision of the penal legislation, as well as a copy of the Penal Code that is in force containing all the amendments made to it.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

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 following matters raised in its previous direct request.

Article 1(1) and Article 2(1) and (2)(c) of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had recalled that the exception provided for in Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention relates only to conviction in a court of law and that work imposed by administrative or other non-judicial authorities does not fall within the scope of the exception. The Committee noted in this respect the Government’s indication that there were no cases in which authorities other than judicial authorities could impose work on prisoners. The Committee expressed the hope that the Bill on the enforcement of penalties would contain the specifications necessary to avoid any uncertainty in law in this respect.

The Government states in its report that the above Bill which, according to the information provided previously, was under discussion in specialized parliamentary committees, has not yet been adopted. The Committee trusts that a Bill which is in keeping with the Convention will be adopted in the near future and that the Government will not fail to provide a copy, as soon as it is adopted.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

Article 1, paragraph 1, and Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 2(c), of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had recalled that the exception provided for in Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention relates only to conviction in a court of law and that work imposed by administrative or other non-judicial authorities does not fall within the scope of the exception. The Committee noted in this respect the Government’s indication that there were no cases in which authorities other than judicial authorities could impose work on prisoners. The Committee expressed the hope that the Bill on the enforcement of penalties would contain the specifications necessary to avoid any uncertainty in law in this respect.

The Government states in its report that the above Bill which, according to the information provided previously, was under discussion in specialized parliamentary committees, has not yet been adopted. The Committee trusts that a Bill which is in keeping with the Convention will be adopted in the near future and that the Government will not fail to provide a copy, as soon as it is adopted.

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

The Committee notes with satisfaction the provision of Act No. 7/1998 repealing Act No. 24/1976 on the hiring and distribution of labour, which required unemployed persons to register with the Labour Directorate and regional offices in order to be placed in employment.

The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government with regard to certain other points concerning the application of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report.

1.  Article 1, paragraph 1, and Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 2(c) of the Convention.  In its earlier comments the Committee recalled that the exception provided for in Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention, relates only to conviction in a court of law and that work imposed by administrative or other non-judicial authorities does not fall within the scope of the exception. The Committee noted in this connection the Government’s statement that there were no cases of work being imposed on prisoners by non-judicial authorities. The Committee expressed the hope that the Bill on the enforcement of penalties would contain the specifications necessary to avoid any uncertainty in law in this respect. The Government indicates in its report that the Bill is being debated in special committees in Parliament. The Committee again expresses the hope that a bill which is in keeping with the Convention will be adopted in the near future and that the Government will not fail to provide a copy of it once it becomes law.

2.  Article 2, paragraph 1. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s statement that Act No. 24/1976 on the hiring and distribution of labour, which required unemployed persons to register with the Labour Directorate and regional offices in order to be placed in employment, has been repealed by Act No. 7/1998. The Committee asks the Government to provide the text of the repealing legislation with its next report.

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

The Committee takes note of the Government's report.

1. Article 1, paragraph 1, and Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 2(c), of the Convention. With reference to its earlier comments, the Committee recalls that the exception provided for in Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention relates only to conviction in a court of law, and that work imposed by administrative or other non-judicial authorities does not fall within the scope of the exception. In this connection, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government to the effect that there are no cases of work being imposed on prisoners by non-judicial authorities. The Committee previously expressed the hope that the Bill on the enforcement of penalties would contain the specifications necessary to avoid any uncertainty in law in this respect. The Committee notes that this Bill has not yet been adopted and that the Government will supply a copy of the text as soon as it is adopted.

2. Article 2, paragraph 1. The Committee notes that a list of various enactments that have lapsed has been submitted to Parliament for repeal, and that the list includes Act No. 24/1976 to which it referred in its previous comment. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the repealing text as soon as it has been adopted.

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

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report.

1.In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, under section 39, paragraph 2(b), of the Constitution, "work done by a convicted person, carried out under normal conditions during the period of detention or probation" is not deemed to constitute forced labour. The Committee noted that the exception provided for in Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention, relates only to conviction in a court of law; work imposed by administrative authorities or other non-judicial bodies does not fall within the scope of the exception. The Committee also noted the information supplied by the Government to the effect that the provisions of the Constitution refer to persons and situations established by a final court decision. It expressed the hope that the Bill being drafted on the enforcement of penalties would contain the necessary specifications so as to avoid any uncertainty in law in this respect.

The Committee notes that the Government's report contains no information on this point. It asks the Government to indicate whether the Bill on the enforcement of penalties has been adopted and, if so, to provide a copy of it. It also asks the Government whether there are any instances in which non-judicial authorities may impose work.

2.The Committee notes with interest that, according to the Government, Act No. 24/1976 requiring unemployed persons to register with the Labour Directorate and regional offices in order to be placed in employment has been repealed almost in its entirety. In order for the Committee to satisfy itself that the partial repeal of Act No. 24/1976 brings it into conformity with the Convention, it asks the Government to provide a copy of the text which partially repeals the Act.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

1. In its previous comments the Committee noted that under article 39(2)(b) of the Constitution "work done by a convicted person, carried out under normal conditions during the period of detention or probation" is not deemed to constitute forced labour. The Committee pointed out that the exception provided for in Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention concerns only convictions in a court of law; work imposed by administrative authorities or other non-judicial bodies does not fall within the scope of the exception. The Committee expressed the hope that the Bill on the enforcement of penalties, which was in the process of being drafted, would specify that only work exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law shall not be deemed to constitute forced labour, provided that the said work is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the person convicted is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations.

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report to the effect that the provisions of the Constitution refer to persons and situations that have been the subject of a final court decision.

The Committee hopes that the Act on the Enforcement of Penalties will contain the necessary specifications to preclude any ambiguity in the legislation on this subject. It asks the Government to provide information on any measures taken to this end.

2. The Committee referred to Act No. 24/1976 which requires persons who are out of work to register with the Directorate of Labour or its regional offices with a view to being placed in employment, and Act No. 25/1976 under which all decisions on placement were mandatory. The Committee noted the repeal of Act No. 25/1976. With regard to Act No. 24/1976, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the measures taken or contemplated to ensure that the provisions of the Act cannot, in practice, serve as a means of exacting labour, and to provide copies of any provisions repealing the whole or part of the Act.

The Committee notes that in its last report the Government refers to the repeal of Act No. 25/1976.

The Committee notes that Act No. 1/1991 of 8 January 1991 on the social welfare and occupational reintegration of the unemployed (republished in Official Monitor No. 199 of 14 August 1992) requires unemployed persons to register with placement offices in order to qualify for unemployment benefit. The Committee recalls that it noted previously the Government's indication that when the Act on the Social Welfare of the Unemployed was adopted, the provisions of Act No. 24/1976 would be partly or entirely repealed, and hopes that the Government will indicate the measures taken in this respect.

3. The Committee notes the Government's information on the provisions concerning the payment of unemployment benefit to certain members of cooperatives.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report.

The Committee note with interest that Act No. 36 of 30 April 1991 respecting agricultural societies and other types of associations in the agricultural sector repeals Decree No. 93 of 28 March 1983 approving the statutes of socialist organizations in the agricultural sector, section 15(3) of which required the withdrawal of a member of a cooperative to be approved by the General Assembly, and on which the Committee commented previously.

In a request addressed directly to the Government the Committee raises a number of other points concerning the application of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

1. Referring also to its observation on the Convention, the Committee notes the exceptions made in section 39, paragraph 2, of the Constitution to the principle of the prohibition of forced labour. The Committee points out that it made some comments on the "Theses for the Draft Constitution" previously with regard to the exceptions to the ban on forced labour.

While noting with interest that the Constitution as adopted on 8 December 1991 has incorporated some of these comments, the Committee asks the Government to supply information on the following points:

(a) The Committee notes that under section 39, paragraph 2(b), "work done by a convicted person, carried out under normal conditions during the period of detention or probation" is not deemed to constitute forced labour.

The Committee observes that the exception provided for in Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention relates only to conviction in a court of law; work imposed by administrative authorities or other non-judicial bodies does not fall within the scope of the exception.

The Committee notes that a draft Act on the enforcement of penalties is under examination. The Committee hopes that, in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention, the Act adopted will specify that only work exacted as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law shall not be deemed to constitute forced labour, provided that the said work is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the person convicted is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations.

The Committee asks the Government to supply information on all provisions adopted to that effect.

(b) The Committee notes that section 39, paragraph 2(c), excludes from the prohibition of forced labour services requisitioned in the event of disasters or other danger and services forming part of the normal civil obligations determined by law.

The Committee asks the Government to specify in its next report what events are considered to be covered by the notion of "disasters" and "other danger" and to supply a copy of the law defining normal civil obligations when it has been adopted.

2. The Committee notes that under section 2(c) of Act No. 1 of 7 January 1991 on the social welfare and occupational reintegration of the unemployed, persons who, as the case may be, have forfeited through no fault of their own their status as members of a craftsmen's cooperative are entitled to receive unemployment benefits.

The Committee also notes that under section 5(e) of the same Act persons who are members or former members of an agricultural production cooperative are not entitled to unemployment benefit.

The Committee asks the Government to state on what grounds former members of a craftsmen's cooperative are denied unemployment benefit and for what reasons former members of an agricultural production cooperative are denied it.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report.

1. Referring to its previous comments, the Committee notes with interest that Decree No. 153 of 24 March 1970 under which categories of persons with a parasitic or anarchical way of life are liable to criminal penalties has been repealed by Act No. 61 of 27 September 1991 to punish acts in breach of the rules of social cohabitation, of order and of the public peace.

2. The Committee has examined the new Constitution adopted by referendum on 8 December 1991. The Committee notes that, pursuant to section 38 the choice of an occupation and workplace is free and that forced labour is prohibited by section 39, paragraph 1.

The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government concerning certain exceptions to the principle of the prohibition of forced labour which appear in section 39, paragraph 2.

3. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to Act No. 24/1976 making it compulsory for persons out of work to register with the Directorate of Labour or its regional offices with a view to being placed in employment; it asked the Government to provide information on all measures taken or contemplated to ensure that the provisions of the Act could not be used in practice as a means of forcing people to work.

The Committee notes the information given by the Government in its report concerning the constitutional provisions on the free choice of an occupation and workplace and concerning the priority given in domestic law to the provisions of the covenants and treaties on human rights (sections 37 and 20).

The Committee has also taken note of the provisions of Act No. 1 of 7 January 1991 providing for the social welfare and occupational reintegration of the unemployed. The Committee points out that the Government stated previously that Act No. 24/1976 would be wholly or partly repealed when the Act on the social welfare of workers was adopted. The Committee observes that Act No. 1 of 1991 did not formally repeal Act No. 24/1976.

Noting that, under section 150 of the Constitution, the Legislative Council is called upon to examine the conformity of legislation with the Constitution and to make appropriate proposals, the Committee asks the Government to supply information on the steps taken or contemplated to repeal the provisions of Act No. 24/1976. The Committee hopes that the Government will send a copy of any provisions adopted to that effect.

4. In its previous comments the Committee noted that, under section 15, subsection 3, of Decree No. 93 of 28 March 1983 of the Council of State to approve the statutes of socialist organisations in agriculture, the withdrawal of a member of a cooperative required the approval of the General Assembly; it asked the Government to indicate the practical consequences of refusal by the Assembly to approve such a withdrawal.

The Committee notes the provisions of Act No. 37 of 20 February 1991 on land tenure, to which the Government refers in its report: an Act which reorganises the system of property, in particular by reintroducing the regime of private property, specifically in favour of members of agricultural cooperatives.

Recalling also that the Government stated previously that Decree No. 93/1983 had fallen into abeyance, the Committee hopes that the Government will repeal Decree No. 93/1989 in order to safeguard the legal coherence of the national laws and bring them into conformity on this point with the Convention and the practice previously mentioned.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

1. With reference to its observation on the Convention, the Committee notes the "Theses for the draft Constitution of Romania" prepared by the Parliamentary Commission for drafting the Constitution of Romania and transmitted by the Government to the ILO. As regards the draft text contained in the theses concerning the definition of forced labour, the Committee, while noting that forced labour is prohibited, observes that the exceptions included in the proposal are not all in conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes that, according to the draft text, "the term 'forced labour' does not include":

(a) "any work normally required of an individual under detention" (or while released on parole). The Committee refers to paragraphs 89 to 101 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour where it indicates that compulsory labour imposed as correction or punishment falls outside the scope of the Convention only if certain conditions are met, including:

work can only be exacted as a consequence of a conviction: it follows that persons who are in detention but have not been convicted should not be obliged to perform labour; the conviction must have been made in a court of law: the exception does not apply to work imposed by administrative authorities or other non-judicial bodies. The Committee hopes that the proposal will be amended in order to come within the scope of the exception provided for in Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention.

(b) "any services of a military character". With reference to the explanations contained in paragraphs 24 to 33 and 49 to 62 of the above General Survey, the Committee recalls that work that is performed within the context of compulsory military service is excluded from the scope of the Convention only if such work is of a purely military character (Article 2, paragraph 2(a), of the Convention). The text that is to be adopted should clearly set out the purely military character of the work carried out by persons engaged in compulsory military service. (This condition does not apply to the work that may be offered to conscientious objectors in place of compulsory military service.)

(c) "any services required of citizens in the case of natural disasters or any other public danger". With reference to paragraphs 36 and 63 to 66 of the above General Survey, the Committee requests the Government to state which events would be considered to be covered by the concept of "natural disasters" or "any other public danger".

2. The Committee requests the Government to supply copies of Legislative Decrees Nos. 66 and 67/1990 respecting handicraft co-operatives and supply and credit co-operatives, to which the Government representative referred in the Conference Committee in 1990.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report and the discussions held in the Conference Committee in 1990.

1. The Committee notes with satisfaction that Act No. 5/1978, respecting the organisation and operation of state socialist units, as amended by Act No. 24/1981, was repealed by section 58 of Act No. 15, of 7 August 1990, on the reorganisation of state economic units into independent boards and commercial firms. Under the terms of section 57 of Act No. 15/1990, the repeal comes into force six months after the date of publication of the Act in the Official Journal (and nine months after that date for agricultural units). The Act was published on 8 August 1990. The Committee recalls that its comments concerned section 71(8) of Act No. 5/1978, as amended, under which any worker who leaves a unit for another is obliged to apply to the executive organ and the trade union body of the unit he is leaving for a report on his activities.

2. The Committee also notes with interest the information supplied by the Government concerning the repeal of a number of legislative provisions, the practical application of which resulted in obligations to work that were contrary to the Convention.

(a) Decree No. 54/1975 concerning the assignment to work of graduates from higher learning institutions has been repealed by Legislative Decree No. 14 of 10 January 1990. The Government states in its report that under Decree No. 54/1975, every graduate was on trial for either two or three years in the enterprise indicated in the assignment document, under penalty, if this period was not completed, of being excluded from employment that corresponded to the graduate's qualifications and of being obliged to repay the cost of their studies. The Government indicates that the new assignment system introduced by Legislative Decree No. 14/1990 is optional for the graduates, and binding for the enterprise mentioned in the assignment document.

(b) Act No. 22/1981 on the assignation of managerial staff to specific sectors of activity in certain zones has been repealed by Legislative Decree No. 1 of 26 December 1989 to repeal certain acts, decrees and other statutory instruments.

(c) Decree No. 9/1983 respecting work for the national economy by soldiers and retired career military personnel has been repealed by Legislative Decree No. 22 of 22 January 1990. Act No. 1/1985 concerning self-management, economic and financial self-administration at county level, which imposed labour under penalty of fines in the event of refusal to comply has been repealed. The Committee requests the Government to supply copies of the provisions repealing the above Decree and Act.

3. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to section 1(d) of Decree No. 153, of 24 March 1970, under which categories of persons with a parasitic or anarchical way of life, are punishable with penal sanctions. The Committee notes the Government's statement in its report that the provisions of this Decree have not been applied since December 1989 and will be repealed.

The Committee notes the Report submitted to the Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations at its 47th Session (February 1991) by a Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Romania (Document E/CN.4/1991/30, of 8 January 1991). The Report indicates that arrests, charges, and convictions were made in 1990 under the terms of Decree No. 153/1970, whose improper use against political opponents under the former regime had been criticised and which the present authorities reportedly proposed to abolish. Members of the rom (gypsy) community have reportedly been tried in accordance with the emergency procedure provided for in the Decree.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures that have been taken or are envisaged to repeal the Decree at issue and ensure that the Convention is observed in this respect in both law and practice.

4. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to Act No. 24/1976, which makes it compulsory for persons without employment to register with the Directorate of Labour or its regional offices, with a view to being placed in employment, and to Act No. 25/1976, under which any decision concerning assignment to a workplace was compulsory. Having noted the repeal of Act No. 25/1976, the Committee had asked the Government to supply information on the application in practice of Act No. 24/1976.

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report that the provisions of Act No. 24/1976, although remaining in force, are not applied and will be totally or partially repealed when the Bill respecting unemployment benefit and the reinsertion of the unemployed has been adopted. Furthermore, according to the Government, contracts should only be concluded under the current legislation after a competition to assess the vocational qualifications of the candidates, thereby limiting the scope of the provisions of Act No. 24/1976, which should contribute to vocational guidance without restricting freedom of choice of suitable employment.

The Committee takes due note of these explanations. It requests the Government to supply information on any measures that have been taken or are envisaged to guarantee that the provisions of Act No. 24/1976 cannot in practice serve as a means of compulsion to work, and to supply a copy of any text that totally or partially repeals these provisions.

5. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under section 15(3) of the rules of socialist organisations in agriculture (Decree of the Council of State No. 93 of 28 March 1983), the withdrawal of a member of a co-operative must be approved by the General Assembly, and it requested the Government to indicate the practical consequences of a refusal by the General Assembly to approve the withdrawal of a member of a co-operative.

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government to the Conference Committee according to which agricultural co-operatives are engaged in a process of fundamental transformation following the adoption of Legislative Decree No. 42/1990, which distributed 3 million hectares of land, representing about 30 per cent of the country's arable land, to peasants as private farms. Many agricultural co-operatives have therefore disappeared or are being reorganised into farms, joint stock companies or other forms of ownership. The Committee also notes the Government's statement in its report that the provisions of section 15(3), as well as the other provisions of Decree No. 93/1983, have fallen into abeyance and that, in a report to Parliament on 18 October 1990, the Prime Minister stated that a Bill on landownership, permitting the withdrawal of members of co-operatives and the dissolution of co-operatives by their members would be submitted to Parliament.

The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the provisions that have been adopted in this respect that guarantee the freedom of members to leave co-operatives.

6. The Committee notes the "Theses for the draft Constitution of Romania", prepared by the Parliamentary Commission for drafting the Constitution of Romania and transmitted by the Government to the ILO. The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government concerning the definition of forced labour appearing in Title II, Chapter 2, point 16 of the Theses.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 7 of Act No. 24 of 5 November 1976 under which all able-bodied persons of 16 years or more who are not receiving training and are without employment are obliged to register with the Directorate of Labour and Social Security or its regional office, with a view to being placed in employment. The Committee also noted that section 129 of the Labour Code allows a worker to terminate his employment on his own initiative, subject to the fulfilment of certain formalities, but that in so doing, he is obliged, in accordance with Act No. 24 of 1976, to register a request for placement in employment. Act No. 25 of 5 November 1976 provided for compulsory allocation to a workplace and prescribed that persons placed in employment were to go immediately to the enterprise to which they had been assigned in order to take up employment.

1. The Committee notes with satisfaction that Act No. 25 of 1976 has been repealed by section 1, subsection 7, of Legislative Decree No. 9 of 31 December 1989 repealing certain texts. It asks the Government to provide information on the practical application of the above-mentioned provisions of Act No. 24 of 1976 and of the Labour Code, and on all measures taken or under consideration in this respect to ensure compliance with the Convention.

The Committee has also taken note of the information communicated by the Government to the Director-General of the ILO in January 1990 concerning developments in Romania since 22 December 1989 and the objectives being pursued by the authorities with regard to human rights and freedoms. In particular, the Committee notes with interest the Government's indications that a new Constitution is being prepared, and that laws which violated human rights and fundamental freedoms have already been repealed. The Committee hopes that the Government will soon be able to provide information on the measures taken or under consideration concerning the provisions of the legislation and national practice with regard to the other points below, some of which have been the subject of its comments for several years.

2. The Committee noted previously the provisions of section 71-8 of Act No. 24 of 29 December 1981, which amends and supplements Act No. 5/1978 respecting the organisation and operation of State socialist units, under which any worker who leaves a unit to take up employment in legal conditions in another unit is obliged to apply to the executive organ and the trade union body of the unit he is leaving for a report on his activities and cannot be engaged in another unit unless the assessments in the report are also taken into consideration. The Committee asked the Government to supply full information on the scope of the obligation placed on the worker wishing to leave his employment to apply to the executive organ and trade union body for a report on his activities, the period within which this report must be applied for and furnished to the person concerned and the consequences for the worker of the absence of such a report.

The Committee notes the indications in the Government's report communicated in 1988, that the document in question is not a report but a definition of the worker's activity, and that it is not a compulsory prerequisite for recruitment but merely serves to give a clearer idea of his previous activity. According to the Government, there is no prescribed period for the issuance of the definition and the absence of such a definition holds no consequences for future activity in another unit.

The Committee takes due note of the Government's explanations regarding the application, in practice, of the provisions in question. The Committee asks the Government to provide copies of model definitions which are used in assessing workers, and to indicate all measures taken or under consideration to amend the legislation to ensure that the non-issuance of such a definition cannot prevent a worker from leaving his job freely and from being recruited in another unit.

3. The Committee also noted previously that under section 15, subsection 3, of the rules of socialist organisations in agriculture (Decree of the Council of State No. 93 of 28 March 1983), the withdrawal of a member of a co-operative must be approved by the General Assembly. The Committee asked the Government to indicate the practical consequences of a refusal by the General Assembly to approve the withdrawal of a member of a co-operative. In the absence of a reply on this point, the Committee hopes that the necessary provisions will be adopted to ensure that members of a co-operative are free to leave it and that the Government will indicate the measures taken to this end.

4. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to section 1(d) of Decree No. 153 of 24 March 1970 respecting groups of persons with a parasitic or anarchical way of life. The Committee has examined the report submitted to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights at its 46th Session (February 1990), by a special rapporteur concerning the human rights situation in Romania, which refers to the repeal of Decree No. 153/1970. (Document E/CN.4/1990/28, Add.1 of 22 February 1990.)

The Committee also notes the indications contained in the above report to the effect that the Decree governing residence in towns by persons from other localities has been repealed, as has the law on compulsory postings on completion of studies, the assignment of higher-education graduates, being henceforth effected on the basis of a competitive examination. It was, however, emphasised that settlement of the posting question ultimately depended on the long-term trends of the economic system. For a transitional period, commissions have been established in each district to examine and try to deal with applications for re-unification made by members of the same family who are currently posted to different workplaces.

The Committee asks the Government to provide a copy of the provisions repealing the decrees and the law mentioned above, including those repealing Decree No. 153 of 1970, and to provide information on any measures taken to ensure that the Convention is observed on this point.

5. The Committee notes with interest that Presidential Decree No. 208 of 17 October 1985 to proclaim the state of emergency and a military work organisation in the units of the national energy system has been repealed by section 1, subsection 16, of Legislative Decree No. 9 of 31 December 1989 repealing certain texts. [The Government is requested to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1990.]