Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2018, publiée 108ème session CIT (2019)

Convention (n° 105) sur l'abolition du travail forcé, 1957 - Bulgarie (Ratification: 1999)

Autre commentaire sur C105

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Obligation to work of persons deprived of liberty. The Committee previously noted that despite the Government’s indication that the voluntary nature of prison labour would be introduced in the new legislation, section 96(1) of the Execution of Penal Sanctions and Detention in Custody Act of 2009, provides that persons deprived of their liberty shall be obliged to perform the work assigned to them by the prison administration, the non-compliance with this obligation being punishable with disciplinary sanctions under sections 100(2) (1 and 5) and 101 of the Act.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that the obligation to work under section 96(1) of the Execution of Penal Sanctions and Detention in Custody Act 2009, refers to the tasks for the maintenance of the hygiene within the prison premises, as provided for by section 176(1) of the Rules Implementing the Execution of Penalties and Detention in Custody Act of 2010, as amended in 2017 (hereafter the Implementing Rules). The Committee notes, however, that according to section 167(1) of the Implementing Rules, all prisoners, who are capable to work, are obliged to perform work assigned to them by the administration. Moreover, under section 163(1) of the Implementing Rules, the express written consent for the participation in labour activities is explicitly required only for the accused and the defendants, not for all prisoners, in particular, the convicts. In addition, as provided for by section 176(1), prisoners also have the obligation to work for the maintenance of hygiene, aside from the labour activities regulated by the abovementioned provisions, such as the work in the State Enterprise “Prison Fund” and in the services and communal activities of the prison institutions (section 164). The Committee therefore observes that, pursuant to the current legislative provisions, convicted prisoners have the obligation to perform labour.

Article 1(a) and (c) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views and for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously noted that several provisions of the Penal Code provide for sanctions of imprisonment, which involve compulsory prison labour, in situations that may fall within the scope of:

-Article 1(a) of the Convention, for expressing political views (section 108(1) for the propagation of “anti-democratic ideology”; section 164 for dissension on religious grounds by speech, press, action or otherwise; section 166 for using religion and church in a propaganda against authorities, by speech, press, action or otherwise; and section 174(a)(2) for conducting a public assembly, meeting or manifestation, in violation of legislation); and
-Article 1(c) of the Convention, for breaches of labour discipline (section 107 for creating difficulties or disorder in the functioning of industry, transport, agriculture or other branches of the economy or individual enterprises, by obstructing their normal work or by non-performing regular duties; and section 228(1) for issuing poor-quality, non-standard or incomplete products).

The Government indicated that, in 2011, only one person received a penalty of six months’ imprisonment under section 174(a)(2) of the Penal Code but that the enforcement of the penal sanction was suspended for a period of three years. The Government also stated that no person has been identified serving an imprisonment sentence under the above sections of the Penal Code. The Committee requested the Government to continue to provide information on the application of the above provisions of the Penal Code.

The Committee notes the copy of a court decision handed down in 2016 under section 108(1) of the Penal Code, submitted by the Government with its report. The defendant was accused of drawing a Nazi symbol and a slogan preaching national-socialist and racist ideology, and received an administrative fine of 1,000 Bulgarian leva. No criminal liability was established in this case. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government. The Committee recalls that the above penal provisions are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to the application as a means of punishment for peacefully expressing political views or for breaches of labour discipline and, in so far as they are enforceable with sanctions of imprisonment involving compulsory labour, they may fall within the scope of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to review the above-mentioned national legislation so that no penal sanctions involving compulsory prison labour may be imposed on persons for peacefully expressing political views or for breaches of labour discipline, thereby ensuring conformity with the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of sections 107, 108(1), 164, 166, 174(a)(2) and 228 of the Penal Code in practice, including copies of court decisions defining or illustrating their scope as well as the sanctions applied.