Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2022, Publicación: 111ª reunión CIT (2023)

Convenio sobre la abolición del trabajo forzoso, 1957 (núm. 105) - Chequia (Ratificación : 1996)

Otros comentarios sobre C105

Solicitud directa

Visualizar en: Francés - EspañolVisualizar todo

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social, or economic system. The Committee notes that as per section 184(1) “defamation” of the Penal Code, anyone who makes a false statement about another person which may significantly damage the reputation of that person, including by causing harm at work, disrupting his or her family relations or causing another serious harm, is punishable with imprisonment for up to one year (involving compulsory prison labour under section 29 (1) of the Execution of Prison Sentence Act of 1999). The same action committed through media, such as print, film, radio, and television, is punishable with imprisonment for up to two years, according to section 184(2) of the Penal Code. The Committee further notes that the United Nations Human Rights Committee, in its 2019 concluding observations, expressed concern that the vague definition of defamation, compounded by its criminalization and by the criminal liability of legal persons, could result in a chilling effect on the exercise of freedom of expression by the general public, and particularly by the media (CCPR/C/CZE/CO/4, paragraph 34).

The Committee recalls that laws against defamation, when defined in wide or general terms, may lead to the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or as a punishment for the expression of political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social, or economic system, which is prohibited under Article 1(a) of the Convention (2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 304).

The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, may be imposed under section 184 (1) of the Criminal Code for the peaceful expression of political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social, or economic system. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 184 (1) of the Penal Code in practice, including examples of court decisions with an indication of the facts leading to the convictions and the penalties imposed, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain its scope.

Article 1(c). Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour applicable to public officials for neglect of duty. The Committee previously noted that section 330(1) of the Penal Code of 2009 provides that an official who, by performing his/her duties, obstructs the accomplishment of an important task by negligence or makes it substantially more difficult, is punishable with imprisonment, involving compulsory prison labour under section 29 (1) of the Execution of Prison Sentence Act of 1999, for a term of up to one year. According to section 330(2)(a), (b) and (c), sanctions of imprisonment for a term of up to three years may be imposed on officials who caused serious disturbance in the operation of a state administration authority or other public authority, or a legal or natural person who is an entrepreneur, or caused substantial damage. The Committee recalled that the provisions of section 330 of the Penal Code are worded in terms broad enough to be likely to fall within the scope of Article 1(c) of the Convention which prohibits the use of compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline.

In its reply, the Government reiterates its previous statement that section 330 of the Penal Code applies only in extreme cases in which a fulfilment of an important task has been obstructed or significantly hindered because of the negligence by a public official. The Government further indicates that breaches of labour discipline not leading to such consequences are not qualified as a criminal offence and are handled through disciplinary proceedings. The Government also points out that the term "important task" applied in section 330 of the Penal Code is defined by a court on a case-by-case basis depending on the nature of activities which were obstructed or significantly hindered due to the negligence by a public official. The Committee further takes note of the examples of the court decisions rendered under section 330 of the Penal Code, which concerned, for example, the cases of negligence by public officials which might have adversely affected the conduction of criminal and administrative investigations.

Recalling that section 330(1) and (2)(a), (b) and (c) of the Penal Code is worded in terms general enough that can lead to a broad interpretation of its scope and, therefore, may fall under the scope of Article 1(c) of the Convention, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the application of section 330(1) and (2)(a), (b) and (c) is restricted to the situations in which breaches of labour discipline impair or are likely to endanger the operation of essential services in the strict sense of the term, or to circumstances where the life or health of persons are in danger. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the examples of court decisions handed down under section 330 of the Penal Code, with an indication of the facts leading to the convictions and the penalties imposed.