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

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

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

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

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

Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention. 1. Work of prisoners for private companies. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the national provisions allowing the law enforcement authorities to conclude agreements with private companies concerning the work of prisoners (section 101(3) of Order No. 6/1996 (VII 12) of the Ministry of Justice on the implementation of provisions concerning prison sentences and detention). The Committee noted the Government’s indications in its reports that prisoners are in a legal relationship with a penitentiary institution and are not directly employed by a third party, and perform labour under the supervision and control of the law enforcement bodies. The Committee also noted that prisoners’ conditions of work are governed by the general provisions of labour law (subject to certain deviations). Recalling that Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention expressly prohibits that convicted prisoners are hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations, the Committee asked the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure observance of the Convention, such as, e.g., to provide that any prisoners working for private companies offer themselves voluntarily, without being subjected to pressure or the threat of any penalty, and subject to guarantees as to wages and other conditions of employment approximating a free employment relationship.

The Committee notes the Government’s clarifications as regards the interpretation of section 33(1)(d) of Law-Decree No. 11 (1979) on the execution of prison sentences, according to which convicts have to carry out their work assignments given to them in accordance with their vocational qualifications and abilities. The Government indicates that, in practice, only those convicts who expressly ask for a job may be given work assignments, a number of job opportunities being always lower than the number of convicts applying for a job. In other words, convicts do not have an obligation to work, but work may be assigned to them according to their choice. In order to get a work assignment, convicts shall apply for a particular job by signing an application form, which should be examined by admission and employment committees of penitentiary institutions. The Government states that convicts are free to apply for work with private companies following the above procedure, without being forced to do so and without any threat of punishment for refusal. It also confirms its earlier indications that prisoners are guaranteed to work under conditions approximating a free employment relationship, as regards occupational safety and health, working time and rest periods, paid leave, etc. Regarding remuneration for work, the amount of wages payable to convicts may not be lower than one third of the minimum wage, if they have worked full time and have met the performance requirements up to 100 per cent (section 124(3) of Order No. 6/1996 (VII 12) of the Ministry of Justice referred to above). Convicts are also entitled to a wide range of health-care provisions and accident-related benefits within the scope of social security benefits (section 16(1)(n) of Act LXXX of 1997 on the eligibility for social security benefits). The Government further states that convicts are allowed to learn new skills and, as far as possible, perform work of the same type as they use to do before conviction.

While noting this information, the Committee hopes that, in the course of the preparation of the comprehensive amendment of Law-Decree No. 11 of 1979 on the execution of prison sentences, referred to in the Government’s earlier report, the necessary measures will be taken in order to include into the revised legislation a provision requiring free and informed consent for the work of prisoners for private companies, both inside and outside prison premises, so as to bring legislation into full conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

2. “Public utility labour” performed by convicted persons placed at the disposal of private parties. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the Penal Code provisions concerning “public utility labour”, which shall be performed, as a penal sanction, without deprivation of a person’s freedom and without remuneration, but may be replaced by confinement in prison, if the convicted person fails to fulfil his or her labour obligations (sections 49–50 of the Penal Code). The Committee noted the Government’s indications that the work to be performed as “public utility labour” must be of public interest and that the employer (which may be a public institution, or a private business organization) shall observe the safety provisions and ensure the same working conditions as those enjoyed by workers employed on a basis of a contract.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the law does not contain any express provisions concerning the voluntary informed consent of the person concerned to perform community service, nor does it offer an opportunity to a convicted person to choose between community service and confinement in prison. The Government indicates that the penitentiary administrator and the probation service should keep a register of institutions and business organizations that need the work of persons sentenced to community service (Decree No. 9/2002 (IV.9) of the Ministry of Justice). The Committee notes the Government’s indication in the report that, according to a 2008 study, probation officers approached municipal bodies or institutions to employ convicts in 60 per cent of cases, private business organizations in 10.9 per cent of cases and various non-public associations and foundations in 9.3 per cent of cases. The Government confirms that community service is performed in the public interest and not for profit.

While noting this information, and referring to point 1 of the present observation, the Committee recalls that Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention expressly prohibits that convicted persons are placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. Referring to the explanations contained in paragraphs 123–128 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, the Committee hopes that, in the course of the revision of penitentiary legislation, the necessary measures will be taken to introduce a requirement of the informed voluntary consent of convicted persons sentenced to community service to work for a private employer. It requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, the progress achieved in this regard. Pending the adoption of such measures, please continue to provide information on the practical implementation of special programmes for carrying out “public utility labour” including a list of authorized associations or institutions using such labour and giving examples of the type of work involved.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention. Work of prisoners for private companies. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the national provisions allowing the law enforcement authorities to conclude agreements concerning the employment of prisoners not only with public bodies or institutions, but also with private companies (section 101(3) of Order No. 6/1996 (VII 12) of the Ministry of Justice on the implementation of provisions concerning prison sentences and detention). It noted that Law-Decree No. 11 of 1979 on the execution of prison sentences provides for an obligation of convicts to work (section 33(1)(d)). The Committee also noted that the employment-related rights of prisoners are governed by the general provisions of labour law (subject to certain deviations), but their minimum remuneration corresponds only to one third of the general minimum wage (section 124(2) of the above Order No. 6/1996 (VII 12)) and they do not acquire pension rights under the existing legislation.

The Committee noted the Government’s repeated statement in its reports that prisoners are in a legal relationship with a penitentiary institution and are not directly employed by a third party, and perform labour under the supervision and control of the law enforcement bodies. It also noted the Government’s statement that the principal goal of employing inmates is to promote their rehabilitation and reintegration into society, as well as the Government’s view (also reiterated in its latest report) that the work performed by convicts (including the “public utility labour”) is covered by the exception provided for in Article 2(2)(c), and therefore should not be considered as forced or compulsory labour.

The Committee recalled, however, that Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention expressly prohibits that convicted prisoners are hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations, in a sense that the exception from the scope of the Convention provided for in this Article for compulsory prison labour does not extend to work of prisoners for private companies, even under public supervision and control. Under this provision of the Convention, work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law is excluded from the scope of the Convention only if two conditions are met, namely: (i) that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority; and (ii) that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. The Committee has always made it clear that the two conditions are applied cumulatively; i.e. the fact that the prisoner remains at all times under the supervision and control of a public authority does not in itself dispense the Government from fulfilling the second condition, namely that the person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. The Committee therefore asked the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure observance of the Convention, such as, for example, to provide that any prisoners working for private companies offer themselves voluntarily without being subjected to pressure or the menace of any penalty and, given their conditions of captive labour, subject to guarantees as to wages and other conditions of employment approximating a free employment relationship.

The Government reiterates in its report that, in national law and practice, contracts exist only between the economic organizations of penal authorities and private companies, while prisoners, who are under an obligation to perform prison labour, are in relation solely with the economic organizations of penal authorities; however, general labour legislation is applicable with regard to their conditions of work (with certain differences). It follows from the sample contracts concluded between the economic organizations of penal authorities and private companies, supplied by the Government, that the economic organization of penal authorities is responsible for providing prison workforce for the production, which will be organized under the job description and instructions as well as regular quality control of the private company, which will also supply all the necessary raw materials and tools and provide training for the workers; the private company will also pay a rental fee for the premises provided for the production and the “fee for the leased work”. It is specifically mentioned that the private company shall continuously control the production through its technical specialists, that the economic organization of penal authorities shall obey the instructions given by the private company, and that the contracting parties agree that they will cooperate during the term of the “lease work agreement”. The Government reiterates, however, that prisoners remain at all times under the supervision and control of the staff of the economic organization of penal authorities, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.

In this connection, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the explanations concerning the scope of the terms “hired to or placed at the disposal of” in paragraphs 56–58 and 109–111 of the Committee’s 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour and observes that these terms cover not only situations where prisoners are “employed” by the private company or placed in a position of servitude in relation to the private company, but also situations where the companies do not have absolute discretion over the work performed by the prisoner, since they are limited by the rules set by the public authority. The Committee also refers to paragraph 106 of its 2007 General Survey, where it considered that the prohibition for prisoners to be placed at the disposal of private parties is absolute and not limited to work outside penitentiary establishments, but applies equally to workshops operated by private undertakings inside prisons.

While noting the Government’s indication that, in conformity with the first condition set out in Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention, the work is carried out “under the supervision and control of a public authority”, the Committee observes that, as regards the second condition, namely, that the person “is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations”, contracts for the use of prison labour concluded with private companies in Hungary correspond in all respects to what is expressly prohibited by Article 2(2)(c), namely, that a person is “hired to” a private company. It is in the very nature of such hiring agreements (or “lease work agreements”, as they are called in the sample contracts supplied by the Government) to include mutual obligations between the prison authorities (or their economic branches) and the private company.

Referring to the explanations in paragraphs 59–60 and 114–120 of its 2007 General Survey referred to above, the Committee points out once again that work by prisoners for private companies can be held compatible with the explicit prohibition of the Convention only where the necessary safeguards exist to ensure that the prisoners concerned offer themselves voluntarily, without being subjected to pressure or the menace of any penalty, as required by Article 2(1) of the Convention. In such a situation, work of prisoners for private companies does not come under the scope of the Convention, since no compulsion is involved. The Committee has considered that, taking into account their captive circumstances, it is necessary to obtain prisoners’ formal consent to work for private enterprises both inside and outside prisons. Further, since such consent is given in a context of lack of freedom with limited options, there should be indicators which authenticate this free and informed consent. The Committee recalls that the most reliable indicator of the voluntariness of labour is the work performed under conditions approximating a free labour relationship, which include wage levels (leaving room for deductions and attachments), social security and occupational safety and health. In addition, there may also be other factors that can be regarded as objective and measurable advantages which the prisoner gains from the actual performance of the work and which could be considered in determining whether consent was freely given and informed (such as the learning of new skills which could be deployed by prisoners when released; the offer of continuing the work of the same type upon their release; or the opportunity to work cooperatively in a controlled environment enabling them to develop team skills).

Noting the Government’s indication in the report that, in the course of the preparation of the comprehensive amendment of Law-Decree No. 11 of 1979 on the execution of prison sentences, the provisions of the Convention are being taken into account, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken to ensure that free and informed consent is required for the work of prisoners for private companies both inside and outside prison premises, so that such consent is free from the menace of any penalty and authenticated by the conditions of work approximating a free labour relationship, as well as by other objective and measurable factors referred to above. The Committee requests the Government to supply a copy of the revised penitentiary legislation, as soon as it is adopted.

“Public utility labour” performed by convicted persons placed at the disposal of private parties. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the Penal Code provisions concerning “public utility labour ”, which shall be performed, as a penal sanction, without deprivation of a person’s freedom and without remuneration, but may be replaced by confinement in prison, if the convicted person fails to fulfil his or her labour obligations (sections 49 and 50 of the Penal Code). The Committee noted the Government’s indications that the work to be performed as public utility labour must be of public interest and that the employer (which may not only be a public institution, but also a private business organization) shall observe the safety provisions and ensure the same working conditions as those enjoyed by workers employed on the basis of a contract.

The Committee notes the Government’s indications concerning the National Strategy of Civil Crime Prevention and the adoption of Government decision No. 1036/2005 (IV.21) on tasks to be implemented in 2005–06 in this connection, including the organization of special programmes for persons sentenced to public utility labour.

The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication in its report that convicted persons comply with their working obligations voluntarily and can choose freely between the two kinds of punishment. Referring to the above considerations in point 1 of the present observation concerning the prohibition contained in Article 2, paragraph 2(c), as well as to the explanations in paragraphs 123–128 in its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, the Committee hopes that the Government will indicate, in its next report, how free choice between the two kinds of punishment is guaranteed and whether, in the course of drafting the new penitentiary legislation, a requirement of the voluntary consent of convicts to work for a private employer is taken into account. Please also provide information on the practical implementation of special programmes for carrying out public utility labour referred to above, including a list of authorized associations or institutions using such labour and giving examples of the type of work involved.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention. 1. Work of prisoners for private companies. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the national provisions allowing the law enforcement authorities to conclude agreements concerning the employment of prisoners not only with public bodies or institutions, but also with private companies (section 101(3) of Order No. 6/1996 (VII 12) of the Ministry of Justice on the implementation of provisions concerning prison sentences and detention). It noted that Law-Decree No. 11 of 1979 on the execution of prison sentences provides for an obligation of convicts to work (section 33(1)(d)). The Committee also noted that the employment-related rights of prisoners are governed by the general provisions of labour law (subject to certain deviations), but their minimum remuneration corresponds only to one third of the general minimum wage (section 124(2) of the above Order No. 6/1996 (VII 12)) and they do not acquire pension rights under the existing legislation.

The Committee noted the Government’s repeated statement in its reports that prisoners are in a legal relationship with a penitentiary institution and are not directly employed by a third party, and perform labour under the supervision and control of the law enforcement bodies. It also noted the Government’s statement that the principal goal of employing inmates is to promote their rehabilitation and reintegration into society, as well as the Government’s view (also reiterated in its latest report) that the work performed by convicts (including the  “public utility labour”) is covered by the exception provided for in Article 2(2)(c) and therefore should not be considered as forced or compulsory labour.

The Committee recalled, however, that Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention expressly prohibits that convicted prisoners are hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations, in a sense that the exception from the scope of the Convention provided for in this Article for compulsory prison labour does not extend to work of prisoners for private companies, even under public supervision and control. Under this provision of the Convention, work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law is excluded from the scope of the Convention only if two conditions are met, namely: (i) that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority; and (ii) that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. The Committee has always made it clear that the two conditions are applied cumulatively; i.e. the fact that the prisoner remains at all times under the supervision and control of a public authority does not in itself dispense the Government from fulfilling the second condition, namely that the person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. The Committee therefore asked the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure observance of the Convention, such as, e.g., to provide that any prisoners working for private companies offer themselves voluntarily without being subjected to pressure or the menace of any penalty and, given their conditions of captive labour, subject to guarantees as to wages and other conditions of employment approximating a free employment relationship.

The Government reiterates in its latest report that, in national law and practice, contracts exist only between the economic organizations of penal authorities and private companies, while prisoners, who are under an obligation to perform prison labour, are in relation solely with the economic organizations of penal authorities; however, general labour legislation is applicable with regard to their conditions of work (with certain differences). It follows from the sample contracts concluded between the economic organizations of penal authorities and private companies, supplied by the Government, that the economic organization of penal authorities is responsible for providing prison workforce for the production, which will be organized under the job description and instructions as well as regular quality control of the private company, which will also supply all the necessary raw materials and tools and provide training for the workers; the private company will also pay a rental fee for the premises provided for the production and the “fee for the leased work”. It is specifically mentioned that the private company shall continuously control the production through its technical specialists, that the economic organization of penal authorities shall obey the instructions given by the private company, and that the contracting parties agree that they will cooperate during the term of the “lease work agreement”. The Government reiterates, however, that prisoners remain at all times under the supervision and control of the staff of the economic organization of penal authorities, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.

In this connection, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the explanations concerning the scope of the terms “hired to or placed at the disposal of” in paragraphs 56–58 and 109–111 of the Committee’s 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour and observes that these terms cover not only situations where prisoners are “employed” by the private company or placed in a position of servitude in relation to the private company, but also situations where the companies do not have absolute discretion over the work performed by the prisoner, since they are limited by the rules set by the public authority. The Committee also refers to paragraph 106 of its 2007 General Survey, where it considered that the prohibition for prisoners to be placed at the disposal of private parties is absolute and not limited to work outside penitentiary establishments, but applies equally to workshops operated by private undertakings inside prisons.

While noting the Government’s indication that, in conformity with the first condition set out in Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention, the work is carried out “under the supervision and control of a public authority”, the Committee observes that, as regards the second condition, namely, that the person “is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations”, contracts for the use of prison labour concluded with private companies in Hungary correspond in all respects to what is expressly prohibited by Article 2(2)(c), namely, that a person is “hired to” a private company. It is in the very nature of such hiring agreements (or “lease work agreements”, as they are called in the sample contracts supplied by the Government) to include mutual obligations between the prison authorities (or their economic branches) and the private company.

Referring to the explanations in paragraphs 59–60 and 114–120 of its 2007 General Survey referred to above, the Committee points out once again that work by prisoners for private companies can be held compatible with the explicit prohibition of the Convention only where the necessary safeguards exist to ensure that the prisoners concerned offer themselves voluntarily, without being subjected to pressure or the menace of any penalty, as required by Article 2(1) of the Convention. In such a situation, work of prisoners for private companies does not come under the scope of the Convention, since no compulsion is involved. The Committee has considered that, taking into account their captive circumstances, it is necessary to obtain prisoners’ formal consent to work for private enterprises both inside and outside prisons. Further, since such consent is given in a context of lack of freedom with limited options, there should be indicators which authenticate this free and informed consent. The Committee recalls that the most reliable indicator of the voluntariness of labour is the work performed under conditions approximating a free labour relationship, which include wage levels (leaving room for deductions and attachments), social security and occupational safety and health. In addition, there may also be other factors that can be regarded as objective and measurable advantages which the prisoner gains from the actual performance of the work and which could be considered in determining whether consent was freely given and informed (such as the learning of new skills which could be deployed by prisoners when released; the offer of continuing the work of the same type upon their release; or the opportunity to work cooperatively in a controlled environment enabling them to develop team skills).

Noting with interest the Government’s indication in the report that, in the course of the preparation of the comprehensive amendment of Law-Decree No. 11 of 1979 on the execution of prison sentences, the provisions of the Convention are being taken into account, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken to ensure that free and informed consent is required for the work of prisoners for private companies both inside and outside prison premises, so that such consent is free from the menace of any penalty and authenticated by the conditions of work approximating a free labour relationship, as well as by other objective and measurable factors referred to above. The Committee requests the Government to supply a copy of the revised penitentiary legislation, as soon as it is adopted.

2. “Public utility labour” performed by convicted persons placed at the disposal of private parties. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the Penal Code provisions concerning “public utility labour ”, which shall be performed, as a penal sanction, without deprivation of a person’s freedom and without remuneration, but may be replaced by confinement in prison, if the convicted person fails to fulfil his or her labour obligations (sections 49 and 50 of the Penal Code). The Committee noted the Government’s indications that the work to be performed as public utility labour must be of public interest and that the employer (which may not only be a public institution, but also a private business organization) shall observe the safety provisions and ensure the same working conditions as those enjoyed by workers employed on the basis of a contract.

The Committee notes the Government’s indications concerning the National Strategy of Civil Crime Prevention and the adoption of Government decision No. 1036/2005 (IV.21) on tasks to be implemented in 2005–2006 in this connection, including the organization of special programmes for persons sentenced to public utility labour.

The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication in its report that convicted persons comply with their working obligations voluntarily and can choose freely between the two kinds of punishment. Referring to the above considerations in point 1 of the present observation concerning the prohibition contained in Article 2(2)(c), as well as to the explanations in paragraphs
123–128 in its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, the Committee hopes that the Government will indicate, in its next report, how free choice between the two kinds of punishment is guaranteed and whether, in the course of drafting the new penitentiary legislation, a requirement of the voluntary consent of convicts to work for a private employer is taken into account. Please also provide information on the practical implementation of special programmes for carrying out public utility labour referred to above, including a list of authorized associations or institutions using such labour and giving examples of the type of work involved.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee has noted the Government’s reply to its previous direct request.

Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention. 1. Work of prisoners for private employers. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the national provisions allowing the law enforcement authorities to conclude agreements concerning the employment of prisoners not only with public bodies or institutions, but also with private companies (section 101(3) of Order No. 6/1996 (VII 12) of the Ministry of Justice on the implementation of provisions concerning prison sentences and detention). It noted that Law-Decree No. 11 of 1979 on the execution of prison sentences provides for an obligation of convicts to work (section 33(1)(d)). The Committee also noted that the employment-related rights of prisoners are governed by the general provisions of labour law (subject to certain deviations), but their minimum remuneration corresponds only to one-third of the general minimum wage (section 124(2) of the above Order No. 6/1996 (VII 12)) and they do not acquire pension rights under the existing legislation.

The Committee has noted the Government’s repeated statement in its reports that prisoners are in a legal relationship with a penitentiary institution and are not directly employed by a third party, and perform labour under the supervision and control of the law enforcement bodies, private parties not being able to control their labour activities. It has noted the Government’s statement that the principal goal of employing inmates is to promote their rehabilitation and reintegration into society, as well as the Government’s view expressed in the report that the work performed by convicts (including the "public utility labour") is covered by the exception provided for in Article 2(2)(c) and therefore should not be considered as forced or compulsory labour.

While having noted these views and comments, the Committee wishes to recall again that Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention expressly prohibits that convicted prisoners are hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations, in a sense that the exception from the scope of the Convention provided for in this Article for compulsory prison labour does not extend to work of prisoners for private employers, even under public supervision and control.

In fact, under this provision of the Convention, work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law is excluded from the scope of the Convention only if two conditions are met, namely: (i) that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority; and (ii) that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations. The Committee has always made it clear that the two conditions are cumulative and apply independently; i.e. the fact that the prisoner remains at all times under the supervision and control of a public authority does not in itself dispense the Government from fulfilling the second condition, namely that the person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations.

The Committee again refers in this connection to the explanations given in paragraphs 128 to 143 of its General Report to the 89th Session of the International Labour Conference (2001) and in points 5 to 11 of its 2001 general observation under the Convention, where it pointed out that it is only when work or service is performed in conditions approximating a free employment relationship that work by prisoners for private companies can be held compatible with the explicit prohibition of the Convention; this necessarily requires the formal consent of the persons concerned, as well as further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a free labour relationship, such as wages and social security, etc.

Noting with interest the Government’s indication in the report that, in the course of drafting the new penitentiary legislation, a decision will be taken on the applicability to prisoners of certain social security provisions, the Committee reiterates its hope that, on the occasion of the revision of the legislation, measures will be taken, both in law and in practice, to ensure that any work or service by prisoners for private persons is performed in conditions approximating a free employment relationship, including the formal consent of the prisoners concerned, as well as - given the absence of alternative access to the free labour market - further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a free labour relationship, as referred to above. The Committee requests the Government to supply a copy of the revised penitentiary legislation, as soon as it is adopted. Pending the adoption, and noting also the recommendations concerning the conclusion of agreements between prison authorities and organizations using the labour of prisoners (Measure 1-1/17/1999.OP on the Procedural Rules of the Employment of Inmates), annexed to the report, the Committee again requests the Government to supply specimen copies of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private users of prison labour, as well as any other information concerning the work of prisoners for private employers.

2. "Public utility labour" performed by convicted persons placed at the disposal of private parties. The Committee previously noted the Penal Code provisions concerning "public utility labour". It noted that, according to section 49 of the Penal Code, public utility labour as a penal sanction is performed, without deprivation of a person’s freedom, at least one day per week, without remuneration, for a period of up to 100 days. The public utility labour may be replaced by confinement in prison, if the convicted person fails to fulfil his or her labour obligations.

The Committee noted the Government’s indications that the work to be performed as public utility labour must be of public interest and that the employer (which may not only be a public institution, but also a private business organization) shall observe the safety provisions and ensure the same working conditions as those enjoyed by workers employed on a basis of a contract; however, public utility labour is to be performed without any remuneration.

The Committee has noted the Government’s indication in its latest report that, on the basis of the Penal Code, the convicts comply with their working obligations voluntarily and can choose freely between the two kinds of punishment. Referring to the above considerations in point 1 of the present direct request concerning the prohibition contained in Article 2(2)(c), the Committee requests the Government to indicate how the free choice between the two kinds of punishment is guaranteed and to supply copies of relevant provisions. Please also indicate whether, in the course of drafting the new penitentiary legislation, a requirement of the voluntary consent of convicts to work for a private employer is taken into account. Please also provide information on the practical implementation of special programmes for carrying out public utility labour, in accordance with government resolution 1009/2004 (II.26) Korm. referred to in the Government’s report.

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

The Committee has noted the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments.

Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention. 1. The Committee previously noted that the law enforcement authorities may conclude agreements concerning the employment of prisoners not only with public bodies or institutions, but also with private companies (section 101(3) of Order No. 6/1996 (VII 12) of the Ministry of Justice on the implementation of provisions concerning prison sentences and detention). Law-Decree No. 11 of 1979 on the execution of prison sentences provides for an obligation of convicts to work (section 33(1)(d)). The Committee also noted that the employment-related rights of prisoners are governed by the general provisions of labour law (subject to certain deviations), but their minimum remuneration corresponds only to one-third of the general minimum wage (section 124(2) of the above Order No. 6/1996 (VII 12)) and they do not acquire pension rights under the existing legislation.

While noting the Government’s statement in the report that prisoners are in a legal relationship with a penitentiary institution and are not directly employed by a third party, and perform labour under the supervision and control of the law enforcement bodies, the Committee recalls that Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention expressly prohibits that prisoners are hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations.

As the Committee repeatedly pointed out, it is only when work or service is performed in conditions approximating a free employment relationship that work by prisoners for private companies can be held compatible with the explicit prohibition of the Convention; this necessarily requires the formal consent of the persons concerned, as well as further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a free labour relationship, such as wages and social security, etc. (paragraphs 97-101 of the Committee’s General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour; paragraphs 128-143 of the Committee’s General Report to the 89th Session of the International Labour Conference, 2001).

The Committee therefore hopes that measures will be taken, both in law and in practice, to ensure that any work or service by prisoners for private persons is performed in conditions approximating a free employment relationship, including the formal consent of the prisoners concerned, as well as - given the absence of alternative access to the free labour market - further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a free labour relationship, as referred to above. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Government is again requested to supply specimen copies of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private users of prison labour, as well as any other information concerning the work of prisoners for private employers.

2. In its earlier comments the Committee noted that Act XVII of 1993 on the Amendment of Criminal Laws introduced into the Penal Code provisions concerning "public utility labour". It noted that, according to the new text of section 49 of the Penal Code, public utility labour as a penal sanction is performed, without deprivation of a person’s freedom, at least one day per week, without remuneration, for a period of up to 100 days. The public utility labour may be replaced by confinement in prison, if the convicted person fails to fulfil his or her labour obligations.

The Committee previously noted the Government’s indications that the work to be performed as public utility labour must be of public interest and that the employer (which may be either a public institution or a business organization) shall observe the safety provisions and ensure the same working conditions as those enjoyed by workers employed on a basis of a contract; however, public utility labour is to be performed without any remuneration.

Noting that the Government’s latest report contains no information on this subject, and referring to the above considerations concerning the prohibition contained in Article 2(2)(c) the Committee again requests the Government to indicate measures taken or envisaged to guarantee the consent of convicts concerned to work for a private employer, such consent being free from the menace of any penalty, as well as the conditions of employment, including wages, comparable to those offered to free workers.

The Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken by the Government to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee has noted the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments.

1. Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention. The Committee has noted from the Government’s reply to its general observation of 1998 that the law enforcement authorities may conclude agreements with state-owned enterprises or private companies to perform certain works, both inside and outside prison premises, but prisoners are not employed by a third party and perform labour under the supervision and control of the law enforcement bodies. The Government also indicates that the employment-related rights of prisoners are governed by the general provisions of labour law (subject to certain deviations), but their minimum remuneration corresponds only to one-third of the general minimum wage and they do not acquire pension rights under the existing legislation.

While noting this information, the Committee recalls that, under Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention, work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law is excluded from the scope of the Convention if two conditions are met, namely: (i) that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority; and (ii) that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations.

The Committee has always made it clear that the two conditions are cumulative and apply independently; i.e. the fact that the prisoner remains at all times under the supervision and control of a public authority does not in itself dispense the Government from fulfilling the second condition, namely that the person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations (see paragraph 119 of the Committee’s General Report to the 89th Session of the International Labour Conference, 2001). As the Committee repeatedly pointed out, it is only when work or service is performed in conditions approximating a free employment relationship that work by prisoners for private companies can be held compatible with the explicit prohibition of the Convention (ibid., paragraphs 128-143).

The Committee therefore requests the Government to describe the organization of prisoners’ work for private employers, both inside and outside prison premises, and to supply specimen copies of agreements concluded between prison authorities and private users of prison labour. The Government is also requested to indicate any measures taken to ensure that any work or service by prisoners for private persons is performed in conditions approximating a free employment relationship; such measures should include the consent of the person concerned, as well as - given the absence of alternative access to the free labour market - further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a free labour relationship, such as wages and social security.

2.  In its earlier comments the Committee noted that Act XVII of 1993 on the Amendment of Criminal Laws introduced into the Penal Code provisions concerning "public utility labour". It noted that, according to the new text of section 49 of the Penal Code, public utility labour as a penal sanction is performed, without deprivation of a person’s freedom, at least one day per week, without remuneration, for a period of up to 100 days. The public utility labour may be replaced by confinement in prison, if the convicted person fails to fulfil his or her labour obligations.

The Committee noted the Government’s indications in its previous report that the work to be performed as public utility labour must be of public interest and that the employer (which may be either a public institution or a business organization) shall observe the safety provisions and ensure the same working conditions as those enjoyed by workers employed on a basis of a contract; however, public utility labour is to be performed without any remuneration.

Referring to the above considerations concerning the prohibition contained in Article 2, paragraph 2(c), the Committee requests the Government to indicate measures taken or envisaged, either to limit "public utility labour" to work for public institutions, or to make such labour conditional upon the consent of those concerned to work for a private employer, without the menace of any penalty, and with conditions of employment, including wages, comparable to those offered to free workers.

The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken by the Government to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in reply to its earlier comments.

1. The Committee previously noted the provisions of the National Defence Act (Act CX of 1993) concerning the obligation to perform short-term or long-term compulsory work for the purpose of national defence. It noted that, under section 133 of the Act, temporary (short-term) work for national defence (such as construction of defence systems, loading, life-saving, etc.) cannot last longer than seven consecutive days and asked the Government to indicate whether any time limits are provided for performance of long-term work for national defence and, if not, what guarantees are provided to ensure that work exacted in case of emergency shall cease as soon as the circumstances that endanger the population or its normal living conditions no longer exist.

The Government indicates, with reference to section 109 of Government Order 178/1993 (XII.27) and section 110, paragraph 1 (enforcement decree), that long-term work for national defence may take place for a fixed or an indefinite term, and that in the latter case it shall not exceed a period of a state of emergency declared in accordance with the Constitution. The Committee notes these indications and asks the Government to supply, with its next report, a copy of Act XXXVII on Civil Defence, of 1996, to which reference is made in the Government's report.

2. In its earlier comments the Committee noted that Act XVII of 1993 on the Amendment of Criminal Laws introduced into the Penal Code provisions concerning "public utility labour". It noted that, according to the new text of section 49 of the Penal Code, public utility labour as a penal sanction is performed, without deprivation of a person's freedom, at least one day per week, without remuneration, for a period of up to 100 days. The public utility labour may be replaced by confinement in prison, if the convicted person fails to fulfil his or her labour obligations.

The Committee notes the Government's indications in the report that the work to be performed as public utility labour must be of public interest and that the employer (which may be either a public institution or a business organization) shall observe the safety provisions and ensure the same working conditions as those enjoyed by workers employed on a basis of a contract; however, public utility labour is to be performed without any remuneration.

The Committee recalls that, under the Convention, convicts must not be hired to, or placed at the disposal of, private parties. It further considers that voluntary consent by the convict to working for a private employer is a necessary condition for such employment not to fall under the express prohibition of Article 2, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention. The Committee also considers that the work must be performed in conditions which not only observe the safety provisions and other working conditions but also guarantee payment of normal wages and social security, etc., comparable to those of free workers.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, measures taken or envisaged to ensure the consent of convicts concerned to work for a private employer, such consent being free from the menace of any penalty, as well as ensuring that the conditions of employment include wages comparable to those offered to free workers.

3. Referring to the general observation on the Convention made in its report to the 87th Session of the International Labour Conference (1999), the Committee requests the Government to include in its next report information as to the present position in law and practice as regards:

(i) whether there are prisons administered by private concerns, profit-making or otherwise;

(ii) whether any private prison contractors deploy prisoners to work either inside or outside prison premises, either for the account of the contractor or for that of another enterprise;

(iii) whether private parties are admitted by the prison authorities into prison premises of any kind for the purpose of engaging prisoners in employment;

(iv) whether employment of prisoners outside prison premises, either for a public authority or for a private enterprise, is allowed;

(v) the conditions in which employment under any of the above conditions takes place, in respect of remuneration (indicating the level and comparing it with any minimum wage normally applicable to such work), benefits accruing (such as pension rights and workers' compensation), observance of occupational safety and health legislation and other conditions of employment (e.g. through labour inspection), and how those conditions are determined;

(vi) what the source of any remuneration is (whether from public or private funds) and for what purposes it must or may be applied (e.g. for the personal use of the prisoner or if it is subject to compulsory deductions);

(vii) for whose benefit is the product of prisoners' work and any surplus profit deriving from it, after deduction of overheads, and how it is disbursed;

(viii) how the consent of the prisoners concerned is guaranteed, so that it is free from the menace of any penalty, including any loss of privileges or other disadvantages following from a refusal to work.

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

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report received in September 1996.

1. It notes, in particular, the adoption of the National Defence Act (Act CX of 1993), which contains provisions concerning the obligation to perform compulsory labour for the purpose of national defence. Thus, section 133 of the Act provides that during an extraordinary situation or a state of emergency declared in accordance with the Constitution, men of age 16 to 65 and women of age 18 to 60 may be obliged to do long-term or short-term manual or intellectual work in accordance with their abilities. It also stipulates that a citizen may only be obliged to perform such long-term work if no appropriate skilled labour is available, and that citizens must be primarily ordered to perform such work for their own employer and in their own job. According to the same section 133 of the Act, temporary (short-term) work for national defence (such as construction of defence systems, loading, life-saving, etc.) cannot last longer than seven consecutive days. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate, in its next report, whether any time-limits are provided for performance of long-term work for national defence, and if not, what guarantees are provided to ensure that work exacted in case of emergency shall cease as soon as the circumstances that endanger the population or its normal living conditions no longer exist.

2. The Committee notes that the Act XVII of 1993 on the Amendment of Criminal Laws introduced into the Penal Code provisions concerning "public utility labour". According to the new text of section 49 of the Penal Code, public utility labour as a penal sanction is performed, without deprivation of a person's freedom, at least one day per week, without remuneration, for the maximum period of 100 days. The public utility labour may be replaced by confinement in prison, if the convicted person fails to fulfill his or her labour obligations. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide, in its next report, information on the application in practice of the above-mentioned provisions, indicating, in particular, kinds of work and conditions of work to be performed as public utility labour.

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

1. The Committee notes with interest that article 70/B of the 1989 Constitution guaranties to everyone the right to the free choice of employment and occupation.

2. The Committee notes that under section 14(i)(c) of Act No. IV of 1991 on employment promotion and provision for unemployed persons support may be given for the training of a person who participates in community services and agrees to receive the type of training offered by the labour centre. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the community services, including their nature, organisation and provisions applicable.

3. Referring to its previous request the Committee has noted the Government's information concerning the unarmed military service and the civil service.

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

With reference to section 336/A of the Penal Code, as introduced into the Code by Act No. 23 of 7 July 1989, which makes any person who is liable to military service and who does not accomplish their civil service liable to be imprisoned for three years, the Committee requests the Government to supply information, including relevant texts, on this civil service, and particularly regarding its length, nature and whether it is of a voluntary or compulsory nature, whether it substitutes or supplements military service. It also requests the Government to indicate the difference between civil service and the unarmed military service referred to in section 4 of Act No. 23 of 1989 and to supply information on this latter type of service, including the provisions that are applicable to it.

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

Legislation on idleness. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with satisfaction that section 2 of Act No. 27 of 7 July 1989 repeals section 266 of the Penal Code and section 91 of Act No. 1 of 1968 on contraventions, under which persons found guilty of the penal offence of idleness could be punished. The Committee also notes with interest that, by virtue of section 5 of the above Act of 1989, sentences imposed on those convicted of the penal offence of idleness representing a public danger, and the other measures that were taken before the coming into force of the Act, will not be applied.