Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2000, publiée 89ème session CIT (2001)

1.  Article 1 of the Convention.  The Committee notes the adoption of the regulation on immigration for employment, particularly the provisions facilitating access to the Norwegian labour market. Hence, under this new instrument, provisions concerning seasonal labour have been widened so that, henceforth, work permits for this category of migrant workers can be issued throughout the year, not only in the period 15 May to 31 October of each year. Another innovation of the regulation is that the provisions concerning foreign jobseekers have been extended from those with technical training at a higher level to those with less advanced qualifications in order to remedy the shortage of technically trained labour at national level, but also in the Nordic countries and in member countries of the European economic area, particularly in the sectors of health care and the new information technologies.

2.  Article 6.  Recalling that under paragraph 1 of this Article, any State which has ratified the Convention undertakes to apply, without discrimination in regard to nationality, race, religion or sex, treatment no less favourable than that which it applies to its own nationals in respect of the matters enumerated in subparagraphs (a) to (d) of the Article, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that female migrant workers are treated on an equal footing with their male counterparts, foreigner or other, in regard to their living conditions and conditions of employment, social security, employment-linked taxes and access to legal proceedings - in view of the growing feminization of migrant workers (see paragraphs 20-23 and 658 of the 1999 Committee of Experts General Survey on migrant workers).

3.  The Committee has also noted the ruling made by the Supreme Court concerning section 349(a) of the Civil Penal Code. This article states that any person who, in an occupational or similar activity, refuses any person goods or services on the same conditions as apply to others, because of his religion, race, colour of his skin, national or ethnic origin, shall be liable to fines or imprisonment. In this ruling, the Supreme Court acquitted the owner of a housing agency which classified information on apartments to let on the basis of the owners’ willingness or not to let them to foreign nationals. The Supreme Court ruled that the housing agency could not be held responsible for the discriminatory nature of these offers to rent and that the responsibility lay with the owners of the apartments, who were not affected by the penal provision in question and could not therefore be prosecuted on the basis of this provision. The Committee notes that under the new Joint Ownership Act No. 31 of 23 May 1997 on the joint ownership of housing, it is always possible for joint owners to stipulate that the occupant or tenant of part of a building must be approved by the assembly of joint owners, that refusal must be based on sound reasons and that, in the preparatory work of the Act, it is specifically stated that colour, cultural background, nationality, citizenship, etc. are not acceptable grounds for refusal. It also notes that under the new House Rent Act which came into force in January 2000, the lessor may not refuse to allow the tenant to sublet parts of the dwelling, or subletting during the tenant’s temporary absence, without sound reasons, and that basing the decision on the nationality or race of the tenant will be regarded as discriminatory.

4.  The Committee wishes to know, first, whether proceedings have been taken against the owners of the apartments who offered rentals of a discriminatory nature on the basis of any provision other than section 349(a) of the Penal Code. It also requests the Government to indicate whether it envisages amending the legislation concerning rentals in general in order to align it on the Joint Ownership Act or whether the provisions applicable to subletting in regard to unlawful discrimination will be extended to letting in general.

5.  Article 8.  This Article was mentioned by the Government as one of the provisions of the Convention causing the greatest difficulties of application during the abovementioned General Survey (paragraphs 600-608 of the survey) and the Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply information on the practical application of maintenance of the right of resident in the event of unfitness for employment of migrant workers admitted on a permanent basis (on arrival or after a certain period).

6.  The Committee also refers to the comments made under application of the Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, 1975 (No. 143).