ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Page d'accueil > Profils par pays >  > Commentaires

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

Convention (n° 29) sur le travail forcé, 1930 - France (Ratification: 1937)
Protocole de 2014 relatif à la convention sur le travail forcé, 1930 - France (Ratification: 2016)

Autre commentaire sur C029

Observation
  1. 2002
  2. 2001
  3. 2000
  4. 1998
  5. 1995
  6. 1994
  7. 1993
  8. 1991
Demande directe
  1. 2023
  2. 2018
  3. 2014
  4. 2011
  5. 2009
  6. 2008
  7. 2006
  8. 2002
  9. 2001
  10. 1995
  11. 1994
  12. 1993
  13. 1991

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. 1. Strengthening and effective enforcement of the legislative framework to combat all forms of forced labour. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the adoption of certain legislative measures, including Act No. 2013-711, of 5 August 2013, which incorporates into the Criminal Code the crimes of “slavery” and “exploitation of enslaved persons” (sections 224-1A to 224-1C) and supplements section 225-14 of the Criminal Code, which criminalizes the act of subjecting a vulnerable person to working conditions that are incompatible with human dignity (now section 225-14-1) by including two new offences: “forced labour” and “servitude” (sections 225-14-2 and 225 14 3, respectively). It also noted that the Act authorizes associations engaged in action to combat trafficking and slavery, which have been registered for five years at the time of the events, to exercise, with the consent of the victim, the rights granted to the plaintiff.
The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that labour inspection officials were previously only empowered to report offences relating to working conditions and accommodation which were contrary to the dignity of persons. Since the adoption of Act No. 2016-444 of 13 April 2016 to reinforce action to combat the system of prostitution and provide assistance to prostituted persons, and Ordinance No. 2016-413 of 7 April 2016 on the enforcement of the right to work, labour inspection officials can now identify and report offences relating to trafficking in persons, forced labour and slavery. The Government adds that the Central Office to Combat Illegal Work (OCLTI) has been dealing for several years with cases of trafficking in persons and labour exploitation, which has provided it with expertise in this field. The Office provides advice and expertise to police units and magistrates. The Committee observes that, for example, the Office detected the case of a head of an enterprise who had recruited mentally deficient persons under half-time contracts and had made them work over 50 hours a week for 20 years. The Government adds that within the framework of the European multidisciplinary platform against criminal threats (EMPACT) project which covers trafficking in persons, the labour inspectorate participated for the first time in 2017 in the Joint Action Day organized in various countries of the European Union, which associates in cooperation at the operational level the labour inspectorate and the judicial police services (gendarmerie). The Government further indicates that a working group on the training of professionals who are in contact with victims of trafficking for labour exploration was established in 2014 to prepare training tools for professionals coming into contact with victims of trafficking, including labour inspectors. A booklet on trafficking in persons has been prepared by this group for labour inspectors and will be disseminated in the near future. The Committee encourages the Government to continue taking measures to raise the awareness and train the authorities responsible for the enforcement of the law, including labour inspection officials, in action to combat forced labour, including trafficking for labour exploitation. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on violations relating to trafficking in persons, forced labour and servitude which were identified and reported by the labour inspection services, with an indication of the measures taken in such cases. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to provide statistics on the judicial procedures initiated on the basis of all of these criminal cases, the number of convictions and the nature of the penalties imposed.
2. Trafficking in persons. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the establishment of an inter-ministerial mission (Miprof) with responsibility for the national coordination of measures to combat trafficking in persons. It also noted the adoption of a National Plan of Action to Combat Trafficking in Persons covering the period 2014–16, which includes 23 measures focusing on three priorities for action: victim identification and support; the prosecution and dismantling of trafficking networks; and the promotion of a comprehensive public policy.
The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the evaluation of the Plan of Action 2014–16 has been entrusted to the National Advisory Commission on Human Rights (CMDH) as the national rapporteur on trafficking. It notes the evaluation report of the CMDH published in March 2016. The Committee notes that the CMDH issues a number of recommendations, including: the need to mobilize the public authorities and allocate financial resources to facilitate the effective implementation the Plan of Action; and improved coordination between the institutions responsible for combating trafficking so as to ensure that all forms of trafficking, not only trafficking for sexual exploitation, but also trafficking for labour exploitation, are taken into account. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether measures have been taken to give effect to the recommendations of the National Advisory Commission on Human Rights following its evaluation of the National Plan of Action to Combat Trafficking in Persons (2014–16) and to provide information on this subject. It also requests the Government to indicate whether a new Plan of Action has been adopted.
3. Protection of victims. The Committee notes that, with regard to the right of residence of foreign nationals who are victims of trafficking, the Government indicates that section R.316-6 of the Code on the entry and residence of foreign nationals and the right to asylum (CESEDA), as revised in 2014, establishes the full right to a residence permit, which is renewable and authorizes the exercise of an occupational activity for a foreign national who is a victim of trafficking who cooperates with the judicial authorities (by lodging a complaint or acting as a witness). The permit is renewed throughout the duration of the criminal proceedings subject to continued compliance with the conditions established. It is issued for a minimum duration of six months. The Committee notes that, in the case of victims of trafficking who do not cooperate in the investigation for any reason whatsoever, the Government indicates that they can benefit from residence permits for humanitarian reasons or on exceptional grounds, as set out in section L.313-14 of the CESEDA. The Committee also notes that the Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA), in its 2017 Report concerning the implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings by France, indicates that the French authorities have pointed out that identification is not linked to the possible cooperation of victims in a prosecution. However, civil society has emphasized that, in practice, potential victims are generally expected to cooperate, usually by lodging a complaint or through testimony that will pave the way for the prosecution of the traffickers This goes hand in hand with the fact that very few recovery and reflection periods, allowing victims to recover from their ordeal and consider the possibility of cooperating with the investigation, have been granted (paragraph 130).
With regard to the compensation of victims of trafficking, the Committee observes that section 131-21(6) of the Criminal Code now provides that, in the case of the most serious violations, including trafficking in persons, it is possible to confiscate the whole of the assets of the convicted person. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that French law does not make a distinction between victims of forced labour and victims of illegal work, even though very frequently victims of forced labour are in a situation of hidden work. Indeed, according to the Government, victims of forced labour can assert their rights in the same way as declared workers in terms of conditions of work and remuneration, and may also be granted a flat-rate compensation equal to six months’ wages, corresponding to the minimum wage (SMIC), in the event of the break-down of the work relationship.
The Committee also notes that the CNDH emphasizes in its report that the low number of violations respecting trafficking in persons identified by the police and gendarmerie shows that potential victims of trafficking do not identify themselves as such and that they very rarely denounce their situation. Such cases are therefore significantly under-reported. The same statistics bear witness to the inadequacy of the resources allocated by France to the identification of potential victims of trafficking. Accordingly, for certain forms of exploitation (forced labour, slavery and servitude), there have been no cases identified by security forces, even though there are instances in practice. In this regard, the Committee observes the recommendation of the CNDH that indicators for the identification of victims must be developed in consultation with specialized associations. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the measures adopted to reinforce the identification of victims of trafficking. The Committee also requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that these victims benefit from adequate protection measures irrespective of their collaboration with the competent authorities.
Article 2(2)(c). Prison work for private enterprises. The Committee previously noted that prisoners may work for private enterprises, either on general service work for jointly managed prisons and on work related to the operation of these establishments, or on productive work for private enterprises hiring labour from the prison administration, or in jointly managed establishments. The Committee emphasized in this respect that, in order to be compatible with the Convention, work for private enterprises has to be performed under conditions that approximate those of a free employment relationship, namely with the free and informed consent of the prisoner and accompanied by a number of guarantees. The Committee noted in this respect that the obligation to undertake at least one of the types of activities offered by the head of the establishment and the director of the Prison Probation and Reintegration Service, in accordance with section 27 of the Prisons Act of 2009, did not seem to interfere with the voluntary nature of prison work, as set out in section D99(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Committee noted in this regard the Government’s indication that Decree No. 2010-1635 of 23 December 2010 issued under the Prisons Act and amending the Code of Criminal Procedure specifies the elements that have to be included in the work agreement, which has to be signed by the prisoner and the prison director prior to the exercise of an occupational activity. The Decree refers, among other elements, to the job description, working conditions, hours of work and remuneration, and indicates the hourly rate and the associated social security contributions, and where appropriate, the specific risks related to the job.
With regard to the remuneration of prisoners, section 32 of the Prisons Act provides that their wages may not be lower than the hourly rate fixed by decree and indexed upon the minimum wage. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that Decree No. 2010/1635 fixed this remuneration at 45 per cent of minimum wage for production work. The remuneration varies between 33 and 20 per cent for general work. With regard to jointly managed prisons, the Government indicated that, due to the unfavourable economic situation, they have not been able to meet their contractual objectives in terms of the number of working hours offered to prisoners, and have had to pay penalties. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to bring the level of remuneration of prisoners working for private enterprises or jointly managed prisons closer to that of free workers.
The Committee notes that the Government has not provided information on this point. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the working conditions of prisoners hired by private enterprises or jointly managed prisons approximate those of free workers and to provide information on this subject. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to bring the level of renumeration of these prisoners closer to the national minimum wage, particularly when they are assigned to general service work for jointly managed prisons.
© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer