Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2005, Publicación: 95ª reunión CIT (2006)

The Committee has noted the Government’s reply to its earlier comments. It has noted, in particular, the Government’s indications concerning the programme of implementation of "public utility labour", in connection with the adoption of the Government’s Resolution No. 1009/2004 (II.26). The Committee is examining this issue in its direct request under Convention No. 29, likewise ratified by Hungary.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the Penal Code provisions imposing sanctions of imprisonment (which involves compulsory prison labour) in cases of incitement to agitation against the law or authorities (section 268), agitation against communities (section 269) and disturbance of the public order by openly declaring false facts or by spreading rumours (section 270). The Committee requested the Government to supply information on the application of these provisions in practice.

While taking note of the Government’s view, with reference to Article 2(2)(c) of Convention No. 29, that works carried out following the court sentences under the above penal provisions should not be interpreted as forced or compulsory labour, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the explanations contained in paragraphs 104 and 105 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, in which it has considered that the exclusion of prison labour under Convention No. 29 does not automatically apply to Convention No. 105. The Committee pointed out that, in most cases, labour imposed on persons as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law will have no relevance to the application of Convention No. 105, but if a person is in any way forced to work because he holds or has expressed certain political views, such a situation is covered by the Convention.

On the other hand, the Committee always made it clear that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence, but if sanctions involving compulsory labour enforce a prohibition of the expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, such sanctions fall within the scope of the Convention.

The Committee previously noted that no cases have been tried in 1997-99 under section 268 of the Penal Code. It has noted the Government’s indications in its latest report that, under section 269 of the Penal Code, 15 prison sentences were imposed in 1997-2000, but no sentences have been served, and under section 270 of the Penal Code, 12 prison sentences were imposed during the same period, only two of them have been served. The Committee has also noted from the statistical information annexed to the report that, under section 270, nine sentences of "public utility labour" were imposed during the same period. The Committee again requests the Government to supply, with its next report, sample copies of the court decisions passed under the abovementioned sections of the Penal Code, which could define or illustrate their scope, in order to enable the Committee to ascertain that sanctions imposed under these provisions are not used as a punishment for the expression of views opposed to the established political, social or economic system.