Seguimiento dado a las recomendaciones del Comité y del Consejo de Administración - Informe núm. 338, Noviembre 2005

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 225. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2005 meeting [see 336th Report, paras. 555-575]. On that occasion, it invited the Government to engage in consultations with the trade union organizations concerned in order to settle the question of the assignment of property so that while some of the assets could be recovered by the Government or their original owners, affected trade union organizations were guaranteed the possibility of effectively exercising their activities in a fully independent manner. It requested the Government to provide information on the development of the situation and, in particular, on any agreement reached in this respect. Furthermore, considering that consultations should be held with all appropriate trade unions on any draft legislation on the nationalization of trade union assets prior to the introduction, the Committee requested the Government to provide a copy of any such new legislation.
2. 226. In its communication of 19 April 2005, the complainant organization, the Lithuanian Trade Union (LTU) “Solidarumas”, stated that by the court decision of 11 April 2005, its assets in Druskininkai (sanatorium “Nemunas”) were seized by the State Property Fund (the successor of the Special Fund for support of the existing and new trade unions). The complainant indicated that the sanatorium was transferred to the union on 17 September 2004 by the Special Fund in accordance with the regulation of the Fund and the law in force. In winter 2004-05, the union had organized an activity in the sanatorium “Nemunas” concerning its heating and maintenance. Works for renovation of the sanatorium were scheduled and a planning for rehabilitation of employees’ health was prepared. Therefore, the LTU “Solidarumas” considered that the action of the State Property Fund, a public authority, was an intervention in trade union activities.
3. 227. The complainant further alleged the lack of reaction on behalf of the Government following a fire that took place on 2 December 2004, which destroyed half of the building of the Cultural Palace of Trade Unions in Vilnius and interrupted the activities of the union. The complainant indicated that the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), having evaluated the destruction of the trade union’s working premises, had addressed the Prime Minister and requested him to take the necessary measures so as to ensure that the trade union movement was protected from criminal offences. Instead, the investigation of the criminal case has been protracted, the damage made to the trade union has not been addressed and the union has been denied the support it had requested for the liquidation of the consequences of the fire.
4. 228. Finally, the LTU “Solidarumas” alleged that the Vilnius District Prosecutor had brought two cases against the union on the ground of “protection of the public interest”. According to the complainant, that was done in an attempt to split the trade union from the inside.
5. 229. In its communication of 23 August 2005, the Government explained that the Special Fund for support of the existing and new trade unions established in 1993 was liquidated by the resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania No. IX-2441 of 14 September 2004, whereby the Government or an institution authorized by it was appointed to perform the functions of liquidator of the Fund. The State Property Fund became the successor of the Special Fund by the Government’s resolution No. 98 of 26 January 2005. During a review of the documents taken over, it had been noted that the Council of the Special Fund decided, at its meeting held on 7 June 2004 (minutes No. 128), to recognize the sanatorium Nemunas and the Druskininkai centre for therapeutic physical culture as the property of the LTU “Solidarumas”. The property was handed over on 17 September 2004; a certificate to this effect was issued on the same day.
6. 230. The Government pointed out, however, that following the decision of 30 September 2003 by the Constitutional Court, the Council of the Special Fund was neither entitled to make any decision recognizing the real estate held by it as property of the LTU “Solidarumas”, nor to transfer such property. Indeed, this court judgement held that assets that had been managed, before the restoration of Lithuania’s independence, by state trade unions, which were acting in Lithuania as part of the trade union system of the USSR, was property of the Lithuanian State. In order to carry out their constitutional functions, trade unions may hold assets by the right of ownership, however, trade unions were not economic entities and their purpose did not include economic activities or public administration, therefore state institutions may not transfer state-owned assets to the ownership of trade unions. Therefore, the court recognized that Article 2 of the Law “On the Establishment of the Property of the Sanatorium-Resort Establishments and Rest-Houses Which Used to Be Possessed by Former Trade Unions of the Lithuanian SSR” of 8 June 1995, under which Nemunas sanatorium and the Druskininkai centre for therapeutic physical culture had been transferred to the Special Fund, was in contravention with the Constitution. On the basis of such circumstances, the State Property Fund, in order to protect the interests of the State, had filed an application with the Vilnius District Court for invalidation of the decision adopted by the Council of the Special Fund on 7 June 2004 and of the real estate transfer transaction. Therefore, in the Government’s opinion, these actions by the State Property Fund could not be interpreted as unlawful or as hindering trade union activities.
7. 231. The Committee notes this information. It regrets, however, that the Government did not provide any information with respect to its previous recommendation to engage in consultations with the trade union organizations concerned in order to settle the question of the assignment of property. The Committee recalls that it made the above recommendation after a substantive examination of the issues involved in this complaint, while taking into account the particular circumstances of the case and the importance of preserving harmonious industrial relations in the country. The Committee notes that the issue of assignment of property continues to raise conflicts. The Committee therefore urges the Government, once again, to rapidly hold discussions with all trade union organizations concerned with a view to finding a satisfactory solution for all concerned and to keep it informed of developments.