Informe en el que el Comité pide que se le mantenga informado de la evolución de la situación - Informe núm. 396, Octubre 2021

1. 529. The complaint is contained in communications from the Confederation of Labour of Russia (KTR) dated 26 January and 21 August 2018, 4 July 2019 and 18 November 2020. In communications dated respectively 29 January and 4 April 2018, the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and IndustriALL Global Union associated themselves with the complaint.
2. 530. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 20 August 2018 and 26 February 2021.
3. 531. The Russian Federation has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 532. In its communications dated 26 January and 21 August 2018, the KTR indicates that its complaint relates to the Saint Petersburg City Court judgment of 10 January 2018 to dissolve the Inter-regional Trade Union “Workers’ Association” (MPRA), a member of the KTR. By way of background, the KTR explains that the MPRA was established in 2006 by employees of the Ford Motor Company plant in Vsevolozhsk and of the AvtoVAZ plant in Tolyatti as the Inter-regional Union of Automotive Industry. It was registered by the Saint Petersburg central department of the Ministry of Justice on 1 February 2007. In January 2014, the MPRA was restructured and opened its membership to workers outside the automotive industry. As from 21 January 2014, the union operates under its current name. Since its establishment, the trade union’s mission has been to represent and protect social and labour rights and interests of its members and to promote solidarity by working with the Russian and international trade union movement to ensure the social and economic advancement of all workers.
2. 533. The complainant indicates that on 28 June 2017, following a complaint by a natural person, the Deputy Prosecutor of Saint Petersburg’s Krasnogvardeisky district decided to conduct an unscheduled audit of the MPRA to verify the trade union’s compliance with its legal obligations as a non-commercial organization and to that effect issued an order to the MPRA Chairperson, Mr Alexei Etmanov, to report to the Prosecutor’s office and to provide a file of documents for inspection. The following documents were requested: the MPRA statutes as amended; decisions of its governing bodies; results of audits carried out between 2012 and 2017; the union’s internal regulations; a list of activities conducted by the MPRA between 2012 and 2017; samples of printed and audio-visual materials published by the MPRA; information about the sources of the MPRA’s funding and other assets; original accounting records from 2012 to 2017; cash flow statements; information on the MPRA’s structural divisions and their leaders and documents pertaining to their governing bodies; a list of the MPRA members and applications for membership and resignation; documentary evidence of the MPRA’s use of internet resources; and various other documents. Mr Etmanov reported to the Prosecutor’s office within the period specified but presented only the MPRA statutes; registration documents; records of meetings of its congress; a copy of a lease; as well as internal regulations relating to the procedure for collecting membership fees, the Audit Commission and the provision of legal services. He refused to present any of the other requested documents, referring to the legislative provisions regulating the activities of trade unions and to international principles on freedom of association.
3. 534. On 21 July 2017, the Deputy Prosecutor ordered that administrative proceedings should be brought against Mr Etmanov pursuant to article 17.7 of the Code of Administrative Offences (deliberate failure to satisfy prosecutor’s legitimate demands). The order was sent to a justice of the peace of judicial district No. 83 in Saint Petersburg. Consequently, the Deputy Prosecutor suspended the audit of the MPRA on 24 July 2017. On 13 December 2017, a judge of a district court in Saint Petersburg dismissed the case brought against Mr Etmanov due to the expiry of the statute of limitations. On 23 April 2018, however, a justice of the peace of Saint Petersburg court district No. 83 recognized the refusal to provide the documents relating to the financial and economic activities of the MPRA in 2013 as unlawful and fined Mr Etmanov 2,000 Russian rubles. The complainant subsequently forwarded a decision dated 16 August 2018 taken by a judge of a Saint Petersburg district court confirming the magistrate’s decision.
4. 535. On 1 December 2017, the assistant Prosecutor sent to the district Prosecutor a report containing proposals to resume the audit and to draft a petition to dissolve the MPRA to be forwarded to the Saint Petersburg Prosecutor’s office and the Saint Petersburg City Court. Accordingly, on the same day, the MPRA was informed that the audit was resumed and that the Saint Petersburg Prosecutor’s office had petitioned the Saint Petersburg City Court to dissolve the MPRA in the interests of the general public.
5. 536. The KTR indicates that the Prosecutor’s arguments as set out in the petition can be split into three categories. Firstly, the MPRA committed a number of legislative violations when registering its statutes and amendments thereto: (i) the MPRA statutes do not specify the legal entity’s legal form (rather than specifying its legal status as “public organization”, they simply refer to the type of legal entity – “trade union”); (ii) the trade union’s official address listed in its statutes is incorrect (the statutes list the address of the elected Board, whereas the consolidated State register of legal entities lists that of the executive body); (iii) the statutes do not specify what categories of individuals or professional groups are eligible for trade union membership (because of the intersectoral nature of the MPRA’s activities, the statutes contain the wording “the trade union may comprise blue-collar workers, engineers and persons of other trades”); (iv) the statutes do not strictly define the geographic area in which MPRA operates (they list the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in which MPRA’s primary trade union organizations operate but state that the list is not exhaustive and may be amended upon a decision of the MPRA board to include new primary trade union organizations); and (v) the current version of the statutes states that the document was amended in March 2015, whereas the statues were amended in April 2015.
6. 537. Secondly, according to the Prosecutor, the MPRA has repeatedly conducted activities contrary to its statutory objectives, namely activities not aimed at representing or protecting the social and labour rights and interests of its members. The Prosecutor referred, in particular, to the publication on the MPRA website of a news story and an opinion piece, as well as to the organization by MPRA activists, on 30 November 2014, of a rally in support of a national campaign organized by the KTR for affordable medicine and a subsequent publication of a related news story on the MPRA website.
7. 538. Thirdly, according to the Prosecutor, the following MPRA activities can be compared to those of a non-commercial organization performing the functions of a foreign agent, without it being registered as such: (i) political activities in the form of posts on the MPRA social network group containing information on a campaign to amend article 134 of the Labour Code to ensure the regular indexing of wages to inflation as required by law and a link to the corresponding public petition; and (ii) receipt of foreign funding through transfer by IndustriALL Global Union (of which the MPRA is a member) of 175,000 rubles in 2015 and 188,350 rubles in 2016 to MPRA’s operating account for the purposes of conducting trade union training activities.
8. 539. According to the KTR, in court, the representatives of the Saint Petersburg Prosecutor’s office maintained that the above-mentioned violations were serious and irremediable and therefore provided grounds for the dissolution of the trade union.
9. 540. The KTR indicates that on 10 January 2018, the Saint Petersburg City Court ruled that it would grant the petition to dissolve the MPRA (a copy of the ruling provided). The court considered that the MPRA statutes did not specify what categories of individuals or professional groups were eligible for its membership and referred in this respect to paragraph 3.1 of the MPRA statutes, which states that, “anyone who has reached the age of 14, is engaged in a trade or profession, is temporarily not working, or retired, or is studying in a secondary or higher educational establishment may join the trade union”; and that “the trade union may comprise blue-collar workers, engineers and persons of other trades”. The KTR indicates that according to the court: “This violation can be classified as serious and irremediable. Furthermore, it cannot be remedied through a statutory amendment, since it concerns … a public association which, by admitting not only persons of various trades but also persons without a trade, including those temporarily not working – that is to say, persons not united by virtue of their professional activities by a common industrial or professional interest to represent and protect their social and labour rights and interests – is not in fact a trade union”. According to the KTR, the court thus considered that the following categories of persons are ineligible for trade union membership: those currently not working, retirees, students, and workers of various trades and professions.
10. 541. The KTR indicates that the court further observed that the MPRA’s statutes provided for the address of its collegial governing body, whereas, according to the court, the address of the union’s permanent executive body should have been indicated. The court did not consider this violation to be serious or irremediable. Furthermore, the court observed that the MPRA’s statutes did not define the geographic area in which the trade union operated. The court considered that an open list of constituent entities of the Russian Federation in which the trade union operated constituted a violation of the legislation. The court did not consider this violation to be serious or irremediable. In the opinion of the court, in order for the trade union to affiliate a primary trade union from an entity of the Russian Federation not listed in the statutes it must first amend its statutes. The court also noted that the MPRA provided inaccurate information when registering amendments to its statutes. The court considered that a clerical error whereby the text of the new version of the MPRA statutes stated that the statutory amendments had been made in March 2015, when in fact they had been made in April 2015, could be classified as a violation, albeit not serious or irremediable.
11. 542. Finally, the court considered that the MPRA had violated the legislation by failing to apply for inclusion in the register of non-commercial organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent, having received foreign funding and having been engaged in political activities. The court considered that some publications posted on the MPRA website and social media outlets were political in nature and fell outside the scope of the MPRA’s statutory activities as they were not aimed at protecting workers’ social or labour rights. The complainant indicates that the fact that IndustriALL Global Union has transferred funds to the MPRA for the training of trade union members and the fact that the MPRA had subsequently used those funds for their specified purpose provided the court with sufficient evidence that the MPRA had performed the functions of a foreign agent by receiving foreign funding. Accordingly, the court decided the MPRA had received monetary funds from an international trade union on the basis of special-purpose funding agreements dated 24 July 2015 and had subsequently spent those funds. The KTR points out that according to the court, the legislative provisions regulating the legal status of non-commercial organizations performing functions of a foreign agent are applicable to trade unions, as section 1, paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the Law on Non-Commercial Organizations contains an exhaustive list of exceptions to the scope of its application. The court pointed out that the Law on Trade Unions and Convention No. 87 regulate only the rights of trade unions, including the right to freedom of association and that the rights of trade unions are not absolute and may be restricted for the purposes of protecting the constitutional framework, public morals and health, the rights and legitimate interests of others, national defence and national security. Referring to the position of the Constitutional Court set forth in its Decision No. 10 of 14 April 2014, the court stated that the provisions on foreign agents are aimed at protecting public interests (ensuring that all interested parties are informed about the involvement of foreign entities in the monetary or material support of any non-commercial organization engaged in political activities), and therefore serve as a legitimate basis for the restriction of freedom of association and can be applied to trade unions. The court did not (sic) consider this violation to be serious or irremediable. The Saint Petersburg City Court concluded that trade unions have a right to engage in political activities in the socio-economic sphere; however, if a trade union exercises that right while at the same time receiving monetary funds from a foreign entity, it must register as a non-commercial organization performing the functions of a foreign agent.
12. 543. The KTR indicates that while the court accepted the position of the MPRA on two points, it did not affect the outcome of the case. While the Prosecutor’s office maintained that trade unions registered as legal entities were required to specify in their name – or at least in the text of their statutes – their legal form as “public organization”, the court concluded that according to the legislation in force, trade unions were not required to do so and must simply specify the type of legal entity as “trade union”. Moreover, while the Prosecutor’s office argued that the MPRA activities in support of amendments to article 134 of the Labour Code regulating the indexing of wage were political and were not covered by its statutes, the court stated that the MPRA activities aimed at developing legislation in the socio-economic sphere (including its support of the amendments to article 134 of the Labour Code) were legal and consistent with the trade union’s statutory goals.
13. 544. The KTR alleges that companies at which MPRA primary trade union organizations operated immediately began implementing the court judgment despite the fact that it had not officially entered into force. For example, the functions of the Chairperson of the Ford Motor Company workers’ committee of the MPRA’s primary trade union organization in Saint Petersburg and Leningrad Province were restricted. The complainant explains that as per the requirements of article 373 of the Labour Code, the employer was obliged to obtain consent from the MPRA before dismissing the Chairperson. On 17 May 2017, the MPRA refused to grant such consent. On 25 May 2017, the company appealed to the Krasnogvardeisky District Court in Saint Petersburg to declare that such refusal to consent to the dismissal of a member of a primary trade union organization was unreasonable. On 22 January 2018 the case was reviewed in court. The decision of the Saint Petersburg City Court to dissolve the MPRA was used by the company representatives as evidence that MPRA’s refusal to consent to the above-mentioned dismissal was unreasonable, even though that decision had not officially entered into force.
14. 545. The KTR informs that on 22 May 2018, the administrative law judges of the Supreme Court issued an appeal ruling on the complaint filed by the MPRA, annulling the 10 January 2018 decision of the Saint Petersburg City Court (a copy of the ruling provided). The Supreme Court considered that there were no grounds to dissolve the MPRA as the violations of the laws that had occurred were not gross or irreparable.
15. 546. The KTR considers nevertheless that the conclusions of the Supreme Court recognizing a number of the provisions of the MPRA statutes to be in violation of the legislation in force create obstacles not only for the MPRA’s work but also to the free establishment of trade unions and their activities in the country. The KTR indicates in this respect that the Supreme Court considered that paragraph 3.1 of the MPRA’s statutes, which opens trade union membership to those temporarily not working, pensioners, students and workers in different specialized professions, contravenes the Law on Trade Unions of 12 January 1996. Thus, in the complainant’s view, the Supreme Court interprets the provisions of the Law on Trade Union as restricting the right of the trade union to define independently the categories of persons that may obtain trade union membership.
16. 547. Furthermore, the KTR indicates that the Supreme Court and the Saint Petersburg City Court considered that the statutes of the trade union which has interregional status may not specify an open list of geographical subjects, on the territory of which a trade union conducts its activities, and must list all of the subjects of the Russian Federation where a trade union organization exists. According to the KTR, such an approach would mean that where a trade union organization is created in another subject of the Russian Federation, amendments to the statutes are required, thereby creating additional complications for the trade union in broadening its membership.
17. 548. The KTR indicates that the Supreme Court further considered the publication on the MPRA website of two articles and agreed with the conclusions of the Saint Petersburg City Court that the said publications contravened the union statutes.
18. 549. The KTR further points out that the Supreme Court and the Saint Petersburg City Court considered that article 2(6) of the Law on Non-Commercial Organizations of 12 January 1996 applied to trade unions. The MPRA considers that the rule on non-commercial organizations acting as foreign agents contained in that Law should not apply to trade unions and points out that employers’ organizations are exempted therefrom and stresses in this respect that equal requirements should be applied to both trade unions and employers’ associations. The KTR indicates that the Supreme Court did not concur with the argument of the MPRA in this regard and considered that the status of a foreign agent did not create obstacles to trade unions’ international cooperation and the conduct of political activities. At the same time, the Supreme Court did not concur with the Saint Petersburg City Court concerning the fact that the failure of the MPRA to apply for entry in the register of non-commercial organizations acting as foreign agents constituted a gross violation and should lead to the MPRA being dissolved.
19. 550. The Supreme Court annulled the decision to dissolve the MPRA simply because it did not consider all of the above-mentioned grounds to be gross and irreparable violations, as required for a dissolution decision to be taken.
20. 551. The KTR alleges that as a result, the Supreme Court confirmed the obligation imposed on trade unions to apply for the status of a foreign agent in cases where the trade union receives funds from foreign sources. The KTR provides examples of such cases of the receipt of financial resources, which can emanate from its members who are foreign citizens, or those who work abroad, from other trade unions, including international trade unions, and from employers that are foreign legal persons. The KTR considers that the establishment of different rules for workers’ and employers’ organizations creates unequal conditions for the conduct of their respective activities.
21. 552. The KTR indicates that it has raised this issue in the Russian Tripartite Commission for the regulation of social and labour issues (RTK) and proposed to consider excluding trade unions and their associations from the scope of application of the rules on non-commercial organizations acting as a foreign agent (i.e. amending article 1(7) of the Law on Non-Commercial Organizations). On 22 March 2018, this issue was examined at the meeting of an RTK working group. As a result of the meeting, it was proposed that the Ministry of Labour will enhance the activities of the working group (set up by Order No. 676 of the Ministry of Labour of 18 November 2013 to analyse the recommendations of the ILO Governing Body (Cases Nos 2758, 2216 and 2251) and to develop proposals to consolidate the current rules and regulations and law-enforcement procedures), hold a meeting of the working group by 15 May 2018 and report on the results to the RTK secretariat. The KTR alleges that while the first meeting of RTK took place on 12 May 2018, to date no measures have been taken by the Ministry of Labour to amend the legislative provisions governing the application to trade unions of the status of an organization acting as a foreign agent.
22. 553. By its communication dated 4 July 2019, the KTR, referring to a negotiation process with the Government on the issues raised in the complaint, requested to postpone the consideration of this case.
23. 554. By a communication dated 18 November 2020, the KTR requested to resume the examination of the case in view of the absence of any action from the authorities with regard to the issues raised in this complaint and, in particular, as concerns the status of foreign agents for which trade unions must apply should they receive foreign funds. The KTR reiterates, in particular, that any trade union that has received foreign funding (for example, membership fees from foreign workers, material assistance from an international trade union association, funds from an employer who is a foreign company, etc.) can be recognized as an organization performing functions of a foreign agent if the regulatory authorities consider that the activities of the trade union are to some extent political in nature. The KTR alleges that the recognition of a trade union as an organization performing the functions of a foreign agent will entail for the trade union not only the need to indicate in all information materials that the trade union has such a status but also the following other consequences: inclusion of the trade union in the public register as an organization performing the functions of a foreign agent; quarterly submission by the trade union to the supervisory authorities of reports regarding the purposes on which funds received from foreign sources have been spent; submission, every six months, of reports on the activities and composition of the governing bodies of the trade union; and mandatory annual financial trade union audit to be submitted to the authorities. The KTR also points out that the term “foreign agent” is perceived by the majority of the Russian population as the same as the term “foreign spy”.
24. 555. The KTR also alleges that a violation of the legislation, in particular, untimely registration of a non-profit organization as an organization performing the functions of a foreign agent, may entail, pursuant to section 19.34 of the Code of Administrative Offenses the imposition of an administrative fine on the organization in the amount of up to 500,000 rubles (about €5,500), as well as the imposition of a fine on the head of the organization in the amount of up to 300,000 rubles (about €3,300). According to the KTR, such legislative regulation can lead to unjustified interference of state bodies in the internal affairs of trade unions. The complainant points out that, pursuant to paragraph 7 of section 1 of the Law on Non-Commercial Organizations, employers’ associations continue to be excluded from the obligation to be registered as organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent, which means that the state has created unequal conditions for trade unions and employers’ associations activities.
25. 556. The KTR further indicates that the Government has submitted to the State Duma Draft Law No. 1052523-7, which provides for the following additional obligations to be imposed on organizations recognized as foreign agents: obligation to report on ongoing programmes and provisions of other documents that are the basis for holding events. The Law would also provide additional grounds for the liquidation of a non-profit organization performing the functions of a foreign agent.
26. 557. In addition, the KTR expresses its concern that the Prosecutor’s office may again conduct an audit of the MPRA, including on the issue of compliance with the legislation on organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent. These concerns are based on a series of publications that recently appeared on the internet containing negative information and defamatory assessments of the MPRA’s activities. The KTR refers, in particular, to a publication by the Russian news agency, “Federal News Agency”, in November 2020 providing information on the Prosecutor’s investigation of the MPRA, as a result of which a decision was made in 2018 to liquidate the MPRA. At the same time, a negative assessment of the decision of the Supreme Court, which annulled the decision of the lower court to liquidate the MPRA, was given as it allowed the MPRA to continue its activities. The publication also mentions that in 2009, several trade union flyers of the MPRA were recognized as extremist materials, and that some of the public organizations supporting the MPRA were liquidated in court. The KTR and the MPRA believe that the reports in the media may be followed by another investigation.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 558. In its communications dated 20 August 2018 and 26 February 2021, the Government provides the following information. Regarding the dissolution of the MPRA ordered by the Saint Petersburg City Court, the Government refers to the grounds stated in the decision for the dissolution: the trade union statutes did not comply with legislative requirements, the trade union carried out activities contravening its statutes, in particular political activities, and also conducted itself as a foreign agent without informing the competent authority. This decision was appealed and examined by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court established that the statutes did not contain any indication of a specific type of activity, or industrial or professional interests, uniting the members of the trade union and expressed the opinion that non-compliance of the provisions of the trade union statutes with the legislation may not be considered a gross or irreparable violation, the said provisions having been permitted when the trade union was registered.
2. 559. The Government explains that as the law does not establish a list of gross violations, it is for the court to assess whether a violation of the law committed by a citizens’ association is a gross violation and leads to the association being dissolved or its activities being prohibited. Gross violations by citizens’ associations of the Constitution, federal constitutional laws, federal laws or other laws and regulations may include acts aimed at denying the fundamental democratic principles, rights or freedoms recognized by the Constitution, the generally recognized principles and standards of international law, international agreements of the Russian Federation, federal laws and other laws and regulations, or at promoting war or inciting national, racial or religious hatred, and provoking discrimination, hostility or violence. A violation which creates a real threat or causes harm to the life or health of citizens, the environment, public order and safety, property, the lawful economic interests of natural and/or legal persons, society and the State also constitutes a gross violation. Gross violations are those, which cannot be lawfully remedied, for example a situation where a decision cannot be taken in accordance with the procedure established by founding documents.
3. 560. The Government indicates that the Supreme Court acknowledged the ruling of the court of the first instance as being correct concerning the non-compliance of certain provisions of the statutes with the legislation in force, but considered the decision that this constituted gross and irreparable violations to be erroneous.
4. 561. As to the fact that the trade union acted as a foreign agent following receipt of money from a foreign source – IndustriALL Global Union (Switzerland) – the Supreme Court based its decision on the fact that the failure of a non-commercial organization to register as foreign agent cannot be considered a gross violation leading to the organization being dissolved, as the non-compliance with the obligation in question does not in itself create a real threat to public order or safety.
5. 562. As regards activities contravening the trade union statutes, the court noted that according to the MPRA’s statutes, the aims of its activities are the protection of the social and labour rights and interests of its members. One of the grounds for dissolution was the publication on the MPRA’s website of three articles containing criticism of the actions of the authorities to institute a “PLATO” system, and also a petition in support of the campaign to amend article 134 of the Labour Code. The Supreme Court noted that, in accordance with the legislation in force, trade unions have the right to make proposals concerning the adoption of laws and regulations on social and labour issues.
6. 563. With regard to the status of a foreign agent for which trade unions must apply in certain circumstances, the Government refers at the outset to the ease with which a trade union may be founded in the Russian Federation; the guarantees of independence, unaccountability and uncontrollability afforded to them; and the wide-reaching authority of trade unions. It indicates, in particular, that a trade union may be founded by three founders and that there is no requirement for state registration, although a trade union may choose to register through the procedure of notification. The Government indicates that there are numerous rights and guarantees afforded to trade unions, including: independence from, unaccountability to and uncontrollability by, state bodies and employers; protection against wrongful dismissal at the employer’s initiative afforded to trade union members and leaders; an obligation on employers to create conditions for the activities of an elected body of a primary trade union organization, including the provision of appropriate premises, office equipment, means of communication, etc.; the priority right to represent workers’ interests in social partnerships at the local level (at the level of individual employers); the exclusive right to represent workers’ interests at higher levels (regional, sectoral, etc.), including through the RTK, which is involved in the elaboration of legislation; the right to monitor compliance with labour legislation and other laws and regulations containing labour law norms as well as with collective agreements in force; guarantees for the activities of trade union labour inspectors; and the right to strike (article 409 of the Labour Code).
7. 564. The Government explains that the concept of a foreign agent is set out in article 2(6) of the Federal Law of 12 January 1996 on Non-Commercial Organizations. To be considered as a foreign agent, a non-commercial organization must receive monetary funds and other assets from foreign states, foreign state bodies, international and foreign organizations, foreign individuals, stateless persons, or persons acting on behalf of those persons or entities, and/or from Russian legal entities receiving monetary funds or other assets from the aforementioned sources. It must simultaneously be engaged in political activity on the territory of the Russian Federation. The legislation also sets out the following criteria for identifying a non-commercial organization’s activity as political: activity in the area of state formation, the protection of the constitutional order and federal structure, the protection of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, the preservation of the rule of law, public order and state and public security, national defence, foreign policy, the socio-economic and national development of the Russian Federation, the development of the political system, the activities of state and local authorities, or the legislative regulation of human and civil rights and freedoms with the intention of influencing the development and implementation of public policy or the establishment, decisions or activities of state and local authorities.
8. 565. According to the Government, the Law on Non-Commercial Organizations identifies the following as forms of engagement in political activity:
   • participating in the organization and holding of public events in the form of assemblies, rallies, demonstrations, marches or pickets or various combinations thereof, or public debates, discussions or presentations;
   • publicly dealing with state or local authorities or their officials, and any other acts that may influence the activities of those authorities, including amendments to or the adoption or repeal of an act or other law or regulation;
   • publicizing, including through modern information technology, opinions on state authorities’ decisions or policies;
   • involving members of the public, including minors, in such activities;
   • financing such activities.
9. 566. The Government points out that trade unions have the right to engage in all of the above-mentioned forms of political activities in accordance with the Law on Trade Unions. Trade unions are the largest non-profit organizations in the country and count over 21 million people among their ranks (the population totals 146.7 million, of which 70.4 million are employed). The trade union side of the RTK includes representatives of the KTR. Trade unions in the Russian Federation are thus fully involved in political activities.
10. 567. With regard to the KTR allegation of unequal conditions created for the activities of trade unions and employers’ associations, as the latter are excluded from the legislation regulating activities of non-commercial organizations performing functions of a foreign agent, the Government indicates that equality of the parties is defined as one of the fundamental principles of social partnership under article 24 of the Labour Code. The Law on Trade Unions and the Law on Employers’ Associations of 27 November 2002 impose almost identical norms for both social partners. However, trade unions, which are based on the membership of individuals, are community organizations, whereas employers’ associations are not. Thus, in comparison with employers’ associations, trade unions have additional rights to organize and hold public events in the form of assemblies, rallies, demonstrations, marches or pickets or various combinations thereof. The organization and holding of the above-mentioned events are among the most effective forms of political activity that trade unions, including the KTR, can perform. The potential for foreign financing of trade unions, which are the largest community organizations in the country, hold wide-reaching authority and play a real part in national political life, including through mass events, leads to the natural decision of imposing certain limitations on trade unions’ uncontrollability by and unaccountability to the state authorities. Moreover, trade union members and the public are fully entitled to know about foreign financing of community organizations that play a key role in civil society.
11. 568. With regard to the KTR allegation that any trade union receiving membership fees from foreign sources, material support from an international trade union association, or funds from an employer that is a foreign enterprise may be recognized as a foreign agent, the Government indicates that trade unions have the legal right to define their own activities independently. This includes defining their sources of financing and how to spend their income. Trade unions define their own joining and membership fees. Moreover, the Ministry of Labour has no information on any mass membership of foreign nationals in Russian trade unions. The transfer of funds from an employer to a trade union referred to by the KTR assumes that an employer may allocate funds to a primary trade union organization for cultural and physical education and health activities in instances stipulated by the collective agreement; and that the wages of the primary trade union organization’s elected body leader are paid for by the employer in amounts established under the collective agreement. The Government points out that such sources of funding are not legislatively imposed; while possible they are not obligatory. On the issue of the material support of trade unions by international trade union associations, it must be noted that trade unions have the right to independently define whether they receive this kind of support and, if so, the legal mechanisms through which they receive it.
12. 569. Regarding the KTR’s allegation that the term “foreign agent” is understood by the majority of the Russian population to be synonymous with “foreign spy”, the Government indicates that it is not engaged in fostering an association between the terms “foreign agent” and “foreign spy” in the public consciousness. The term “foreign agent” has been used for decades in the legislation of countries presented as archetypes of democratic societies. It must also be noted that the Constitutional Court in its resolution No. 10-P of 8 April 2014 stated that the institution of non-profit organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent does not necessarily mean that all non-commercial organizations are unfavourably regarded by the Government, nor is it designed to foster a negative attitude to political activities undertaken by non-commercial organizations, and, as a result, it cannot be interpreted as an expression of distrust or a wish to discredit non-commercial organizations or their goals.
13. 570. Regarding the KTR’s allegation that the MPRA is at risk of being investigated by the Prosecutor’s office following a series of online publications about it in the Federal News Agency, the Government indicates that the Federal News Agency is not the official information channel of the Prosecutor’s Office, the Government, or any other state body. It is therefore not possible to comment on its publications.
14. 571. In the light of the above, the Government considers that the KTR’s complaint is unfounded.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 595. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure that the right of trade unions to express opinions, including those criticizing the Government’s economic and social policies is duly protected in law and in practice. It requests the Government to indicate all steps taken to that end.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to find an appropriate solution through social dialogue in order to ensure that the regulations on non-commercial organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent are compatible with the principle of freedom of association. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all measures taken in this respect.
   • (c) The Committee expects that the discussion of the April 2010 Proposals will continue in the framework of the RTK with a view to addressing and resolving all of the issues raised in this and previous cases in line with the Committee’s recommendations. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of all developments in this regard.
   • (d) The Committee draws the legislative aspects of this case to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Convention and Recommendations.