Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2002, Publicación: 91ª reunión CIT (2003)

The Committee takes note of the information contained in the Government’s reports. It notes with interest the adoption of several regulations designed to apply the provisions of the Convention, namely Government Decree 233/1996 (XII.26.) on the Rules of the Procedure relating to Hazardous Substances and Hazardous Preparations, and its implementing Decree 4/1997 (II.21.) issued by the Minister of Social Welfare, both of which are based on the respective European Directives. The Government indicates that they deal with various issues denoting general rules as to the registration, classification, labelling, packaging, transport, health protection and occupational safety as well as regulations concerning the registration of hazardous substances and preparations and the exchange on related information as well as the utilisation of the less hazardous materials suitable for the activity concerned in view of the risk assessment. The Committee also notes Decree 25/1996 (VIII. 28.) NM on the General Health Requirements of Work Performance and Working Conditions Implying No Danger to Health, issued by the Minister of Welfare to implement the provisions of the Act XCIII on Labour Protection, 1993, which, according to the Government, refers to threshold limit values and substitution of carcinogenic substances by less harmful substances. The Committee, with a view to examine the above texts in the light of the provisions of the Convention, would request the Government to supply a copy of them. The Committee further notes with interest the adoption of Order 26/2000 (IX.30.) EüM on the Protection against Carcinogenic Substances and the Prevention of Occupational Health Damage caused by them which became effective on 1 January 2001. The Government indicates that, while seeking to minimise workers’ exposure to carcinogenic substances and to promote the protection of workers against occupational health damage and malignant tumours as provided for in section 88, subsection 2 of the Act XCIII on Labour Protection, 1993, it reflects the provisions of the Convention as well as those of the respective Directives of the European Union. As to the content, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, inter alia, the Order deals with risks management, risks minimisation, substitution of carcinogenic substances; prevention and exposure minimisation; provision of information and training to staff; registering employees working under exposure to a carcinogenic substance; health examination; generating and preserving documentation as well as a list of carcinogens characterized by sentences R45 and R49. In view of this information, it would appear to the Committee that Order 26/2000 (IX.30.)EüM would meet the requirements set forth in Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention. The Committee therefore would be grateful if the Government would supply a copy of the above Order in order to enable it to determine the extent to which the provisions of this Order in fact would apply the above articles of the Convention.

Beyond these comments and with regard to the Government’s comprehensive explanations contained in its reports, the Committee draws the Government’s attention distinctively to the following points.

1. Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that, pursuant to Government Decree 233/1996 (XII.26.) on the Rules of the Procedure Relating to Hazardous Substances and Hazardous Preparations, prior to the start of the production, manufacture, processing or utilisation, including the import from abroad of hazardous substances or preparations, the less hazardous material suitable for the activity concerned must be chosen on the grounds of a risk assessment and a cost/benefit analysis to be carried out. The Committee understands that a cost/benefit analysis in this context would imply deliberations on the economic tolerability in the determination whether carcinogenic substances or agents are to be replaced by less harmful substances or agents, a restriction, which is not foreseen by Article 2, paragraph 1 of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to supply a copy of Government Decree 233/1996 (XII.26.) to reveal the extent to which this article of the Convention is applied.

2. Article 3. With regard to the data on the results of the medical examination to be carried out under the provisions of Decree 33/1998 (VI. 24.) on Medical Examination of/Report on Occupational, Professional and Personal Hygienic Aptitude, the Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that these data have to be compiled in a documentation, which is maintained by the occupational health service, and conserved pursuant to Act XLVII on the Management and Protection of Health and Related Personal Data, 1997, for at least thirty years. In case of the cessation of the employer’s activities, these data must be transferred to the competent institute of the National Health Officer’s Service (ANTSZ). The Government further indicates that the registration obligations of the both the employer and the ANTSZ are specified in Decree 26/2000. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would transmit a copy of the legal texts referred to above to enable the Committee to examine in detail the application of Article 3 of the Convention by the national legislation.

3. Article 5. The Committee notes from the Government’s indications provided in its last report under Convention No. 161 that specific occupational medical aptitude examinations are addressed in the Minister of Welfare Decree 33/1998 (VI.24.) NM on the Medical Examination of/Report on Occupational, Professional and Personal Hygienic Aptitude providing for mandatory preliminary and periodic annual medical examinations of workers exposed to carcinogenic substances as well as for a "final examination" of workers after they have ceased the activity or the employment relationship where they have been exposed to carcinogens. The Government further indicates that these post-assignment medical examinations are to be carried out for ten years in the case of worker’s exposure to human carcinogenic substances, and for four years after exposure to benzene or ionising radiations. Taking note of this information, the Committee requests the Government to explain the reasons for providing workers, who were exposed to human carcinogens, more than twice as long with medical examinations after they ceased their activity in comparison to workers who were exposed to benzene or ionising radiations. Moreover, the Committee will provide further comments after it had examined the above Decree. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether the methodological guidelines for medical examinations, which the Government had announced in its report of 1996, have been issued in the meantime. If that is the case, it would requests the Government to provide a copy of them.

4. Part IV of the report form. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that the collection of data on professional health damage caused by carcinogenic substances is mandatory by virtue of the Government Decree on the National Statistical Data Collection Programme in the form of annual reports on occupational diseases, which, according to the Committee’s understanding, is most recently prescribed under number 1572 of Government Decree 187/1998 (XI.13.). It notes that, in 1998, three cases of tumour of occupational origin were reported caused by exposure to asbestos and metal fumes of different kinds. The Committee, taking due note of this information, invites the Government to continue to provide information on the practical application of the Convention in the country. It also requests the Government to transmit a copy of the above legal texts.