Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 151, Novembre 1975

40. The Committee examined Case No. 736 in November 1973 and May 1974 and at each of these sessions submitted an interim report to the Governing Body. These reports appear in paragraphs 395 to 398, 405 to 410 and 422 of its 139th report and in paragraphs 98 to 109 of its 144th report. It examined Case No. 760 in May 1974 and submitted an interim report to the Governing Body which appears in paragraphs 123 to 135 of its 144th report.

1. 40. The Committee examined Case No. 736 in November 1973 and May 1974 and at each of these sessions submitted an interim report to the Governing Body. These reports appear in paragraphs 395 to 398, 405 to 410 and 422 of its 139th report and in paragraphs 98 to 109 of its 144th report. It examined Case No. 760 in May 1974 and submitted an interim report to the Governing Body which appears in paragraphs 123 to 135 of its 144th report.
2. 41. Spain has ratified neither the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), nor the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Case No. 736
  42. 42 The Committee recalls that the WCL stated that the police arrested the trade union leader, Claudia Pérez on 16 December 1972 at Cornellá near Barcelona, then released him, and that the Civil Guard intervened during a meeting at Mollet de Vallés. The complainant also alleged that workers of Siemens, Soler Almirall and Tornillera Mata organised a peaceful meeting at Cornellá on 9 January 1973. As the trade union authorities had not allowed the meeting to take place on their premises, it had been held in the bar of the building of the "official unions". It was claimed that the workers had been handled roughly by the Civil Guard and that Jesús Garrido Santiago and Juan Sánchez Mora had been arrested.
  43. 43 The Government stated in its reply that these persons were subject to the competent civil jurisdiction and had been at liberty since 15 February 1973.
  44. 44 In November 1973, the Committee recommended particularly to the Governing Body that it request the Government to indicate whether charges had been preferred against the persons arrested and, if so, to state what the charges were and, if the persons had been brought to trial, to provide the text of the judgment pronounced together with the grounds adduced therefor.
  45. 45 In a later communication, the Government stated that the incidents had taken a form very different from that described by the complainants. According to the Government, political pamphlets had been distributed in Barcelona; on the following days, meetings had taken place in the bar of the district trade union delegation, attended mainly by persons who were neither workers nor residents of Cornellá and the surrounding area. On that occasion, subversive slogans had been shouted, particularly against the State, the Government and the Spanish nation and its unity. These political meetings, continued the Government, at which no reference was ever made to occupational problems, had led to disorder on the trade union premises, attacks on property and disturbances in the street. The Secretary of the District Office and a sergeant of the civil Guard had been seriously injured. Two persons had been arrested for participation in an unauthorised and violent meeting during which subversive slogans had been shouted and stones had been thrown at the police. The Government added that both of the accused had been provisionally released and that the public prosecutor had called for a sentence of three months' imprisonment.
  46. 46 In its 144th report, the Committee noted this information and particularly that the two persons arrested and provisionally released were to be brought to trial. It therefore recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to furnish the text of the judgment concerning the two persons once it had been rendered.
  47. 47 In a communication of 13 February 1975, the Government recalled first of all that other two persons arrested, who had been brought to trial within the time limits prescribed by law and had been provisionally released since 15 February 1973, had been acquitted. The case had been heard orally and in public on 13 May 1974 by the competent ordinary court. The accused had been assisted, as they had throughout the investigations, by a counsel and a solicitor. It had been established during the trial that the two accused had been arrested at the place where a large gathering of people had formed on the public highway, within the town area, and was blocking the traffic. That was why, the Government explained, the police had intervened to disperse the crowd. Unidentified persons had thrown stones at a sergeant, who had been injured. The court took the view that the evidence submitted was inadequate and that it could not pass sentence, as requested by the prosecution, for riotous assembly.
• Case No. 760
  48. 48 In its letter of 8 June 1973, the WCL alleged that a strike had broken out in the Michelin factory in Lasarte (Province of Guipúzcoa), that the workers had set up a strike Committee, but that the management had refused to have any dealings with the Committee, wishing to deal solely with the "official trade union". According to the WCL, the police had arrested 11 persons of whom it gave the names. It said that 8 others had been provisionally released. It was claimed that the 11 persons had been accused of belonging to the Basque Workers' Solidarity Movement, an organisation founded in 1911 and affiliated to the WCL, which had been outlawed by Spanish legislation.
  49. 49 In its reply, the Government stated that the conflict had been settled in five days, in accordance with normal procedure, by the lawful trade union bodies and representatives belonging to the trade union organisation. The Government considered it unacceptable for the complainants to refer to the latter as the "official trade union" and to describe as trade union organisations ones which could be considered solely as small subversive political groups. Undertakings had to deal with true, freely elected representatives of the workers and not with those who did not represent the workers. The organisation in question, the Government added, had separatist aims and was bent on undermining national unity and territorial integrity. It pointed out that the arrested persons mentioned by the complainants were charged with subversive activities of a political nature and with undermining public order. They had all been provisionally released and the case was pending before the courts.
  50. 50 In its 144th report, the Committee noted the allegations made by the complainants and the observations concerning them presented by the Government. It noted, in particular, that the persons mentioned in the complaint had been provisionally released and that their case was still pending before the courts. In those circumstances, it recommended that the Governing Body request the Government to supply the texts of the judgments concerning the eleven persons mentioned in the complaint, once they had been rendered.
  51. 51 In a communication of 11 February 1975, the Government stated that the persons in question, accused of illicit association, had been acquitted by the competent court. The case was heard orally in public court on 18 November 1974, the accused people being assisted, as they had been throughout the proceedings, by a counsel and a solicitor. It was proved to the satisfaction of the court and recorded in the judgment rendered that prior to June 1973 they had had frequent contacts with the members of an illicit political association from whom they had received training with a view to joining the association. However, it had not been proved that the accused had actually joined the said association. Considering that insufficient evidence had been produced to warrant a sentence, the court had acquitted them in application of the principle of benefit of the doubt.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

• Conclusions of the Committee
  52. 52 The Committee regrets, in these two cases, that the Government has not, as requested by the Governing Body, supplied copies of the judgments handed down in respect of the persons mentioned in paragraphs 46 (Case No. 736) and 50 (Case No. 760) above. The Committee nevertheless notes that these two trials ended in acquittals.