ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Home > Country profiles >  > Comments

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

Hungary

Workmen's Compensation (Agriculture) Convention, 1921 (No. 12) (Ratification: 1956)
Workmen's Compensation (Accidents) Convention, 1925 (No. 17) (Ratification: 1928)
Workmen's Compensation (Occupational Diseases) Convention (Revised), 1934 (No. 42) (Ratification: 1935)

Other comments on C017

Observation
  1. 2019
  2. 2013
Direct Request
  1. 2019
  2. 2013
  3. 2008
  4. 2001

Other comments on C042

Direct Request
  1. 2019
  2. 2013

Display in: French - SpanishView all

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of ratified Conventions on Workmen’s Compensation, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 12 (agriculture), 17 (accidents) and 42 (occupational diseases) (revised) together.
The Committee notes the observations of the employees’ representatives in the National ILO Council on the application of Convention No. 17, communicated with the Government’s report.
Article 1 of Convention No. 12 and Article 2(2) of Convention No. 17. Coverage of seasonal agricultural workers, seasonal workers in tourism and occasional workers. (a) Pension insurance. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, following the adoption in 2010 of Act No. LXXV on Simplified Employment, seasonal workers in agriculture and tourism and occasional workers are only entitled to healthcare services in case of employment injury, and asked the Government to reconsider the situation with a view to limiting the categories of seasonal or occasional workers who may be excluded by law from pension insurance coverage to those authorized by Convention No. 17, and to report on the number of workers actually excluded from the benefits provided under the pension insurance scheme. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report concerning the possibility for workers in simplified employment, excluded from pension insurance coverage under the Social Security Act, to qualify for pension benefits and accident-related health services through the payment of a tax stamp (section 10(1)(b) of Act No. LXXV of 2010). The Committee recalls however that, according to Article 2(2) of Convention No. 17, only specific categories of workers can be excluded from compensation for occupational injuries and that workers of a casual nature can only be excluded if the work they perform is not related to their employers’ trade or business. In addition, Article 1 of Convention No. 12 requires the extension to all agricultural wage-earners of all legal provisions for the compensation of work injuries. The Committee once again requests the Government to consider the possibility of limiting the categories of seasonal or occasional workers excluded from workers’ compensation to those established by Convention No. 12 and to keep it informed of any measures taken with a view to ensuring full compliance with Conventions Nos 12 and 17. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether it envisages to extend the payment of the tax stamp to cover work accident-related benefits other than healthcare in order to provide the protection required under Conventions Nos 12 and 17.
Article 1 of Convention No. 12 and Article 2(2) of Convention No. 17. (b) Health insurance – medical care benefits. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous request concerning the entitlement of injured workers in simplified employment to all necessary medical care and devices free of charge.
Article 7 of Convention No. 17. Constant attendance by another person. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how the national legislation and practice gave effect to Article 7 of the Convention which requires that in cases where the work injury results in incapacity of such a nature that the injured worker must have the constant help of another person, additional compensation shall be provided. The Committee notes that according to Act No. III of 1993, a Nursing Fee of a basic amount of 32,600 Hungarian forint (HUF) (Central Budget Act 2018), doubled in case of significant incapacity, is granted to an adult relative who cares for a person in need of long-term care at home (section 40 of Act No. III of 1993). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on whether other payments or services, free of charge, are available to workers who have sustained an occupational injury to guarantee that, when their state requires constant help, they can afford to pay for, or receive, assistance from persons other than relatives, such as professional caregivers.
Application of Convention No. 17 in practice. The Committee notes, as indicated by the Government, that there is no specific social security branch for employment injury, but that various types of social insurance benefits are payable, alongside the compensation for which employers are liable under the Labour Code. Concerning the rules for compensation, the Committee further notes that, according to the employees’ representatives in the National ILO Council, the new Labour Code promulgated by Act No. I. of 2012 introduced a substantial change in the provisions on employers’ liability for damages in case of accidents at work. According to these observations, while employers’ liability remains objective, and the burden of proof remains with the employer in the case of exemption from liability, the new rules widen the range of exemptions from liability, thus limiting the scope of interpretation of employers’ liability by national tribunals. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the functioning of the current provisions regulating employers’ liability for damages in case of accidents at work and of the way they are applied in practice, and to continue providing examples of relevant judicial decisions.
Article 2 of Convention No. 42. Proof of the occupational origin of disease. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate measures with a view to re-establishing the principle of presumption of occupational origin of occupational diseases at least with respect to the diseases established by the Schedule appended to the Convention. The Committee notes, as indicated by the Government that, apart from Annex 2 of Decree No. 27/1996 (VIII.28) NM, including the list of the occupational diseases to be reported, this also provides the possibility to recognize a disease that can be identified as occupational in origin, based on factors such as working environment and conditions. The Committee once again requests the Government to confirm that a presumption of occupational origin without the requirement to prove the causal link with the occupation exists, at least in cases of the diseases listed in the Annex 2 to the Decree that are in accordance with the Schedule appended to Article 2 of the Convention, when those affect workers engaged in the trades, industries or processes placed in the said Schedule.
Application of Convention No. 42 in practice. The Committee notes the indication provided by the Government that occupational diseases are underreported. For a total of over 4 million employed persons in 2016, the Government reported 245 cases of occupational diseases in 2016, and 131 sick pays were paid. The Committee requests the Government to indicate measures taken to improve the reporting of occupational diseases with a view to giving full effect to the Convention in practice.
The Committee has been informed that, based on the recommendations of the Standards Review Mechanism Tripartite Working Group (SRM tripartite working group), the Governing Body has decided that member States for which Conventions Nos 17 and 42 are in force should be encouraged to ratify the more recent Employment Injury Benefits Convention, 1964 [Schedule I amended in 1980] (No. 121), or the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102), accepting its Part VI (see GB.328/LILS/2/1). Conventions Nos 121 and 102 reflect the more modern approach to employment injury benefits. The Committee therefore encourages the Government to follow up the Governing Body’s decision at its 328th Session (October–November 2016) approving the recommendations of the SRM tripartite working group and to consider ratifying Conventions Nos 121 or 102 (Part VI) as the most up-to-date instruments in this subject area.
© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer