Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 295, Novembre 1994

1. 463. The complaint in this case is contained in communications from the Central Committee of Free Trade Unions dated 15 December 1993 and 5 March 1994. Subsequently, the complainant organization furnished additional information in communications dated 10 March and 24 May 1994. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 1 and 30 June 1994.
2. 464. The Russian Federation has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 465. In its communication of 15 December 1993, the Central Committee of Free Trade Unions alleges government persecution of its members and refers in particular to the arrest of Mr. Klebanov (President of the Central Committee of Free Trade Unions) in October 1993.
2. 466. In its communications of 5 and 10 March 1994, the complainant organization alleges the following acts of anti-union discrimination:
   • - Region of Volgograd: administrative sanctions based on false accusations against Valeria Pavlovna Tatsenko (co-president of the Federation of Free Trade Unions of Ukraine), Vladimir Borissovitch Anfenoguenov (teacher, member of the Central Committee of Free Trade Unions) and Valentina Nikolaevna Strijneva (headmistress of the secondary school of Lobatchevski). These last two mentioned persons were arrested by the police on 4 March 1994, without any charge being brought against them, and were detained for 48 hours;
   • - Balachikha-Moscow: Mr. Albert Baboevitch Sournalyan (member of the Central Committee of Free Trade Unions) was sentenced on the false charge of contempt of court to 15 days' detention;
   • - Moscow: Mr. Edouard Ivanovitch Maslov (legal inspector of the Central Committee of Free Trade Unions) was arrested by the police and subsequently released;
   • - Moscow: on 19 February 1994 a group of armed police searched the premises of the Central Committee of Free Trade Unions, with the assistance of ten other persons, and assaulted the president of the organization. All this occurred in the presence of three members of the trade union organization. Mr. Klebanov and Mrs. Sevryoukova (secretary of the Central Committee of Free Trade Unions) were held in a preventive detention centre for more than 48 hours. Both were expelled to Ukraine on 22 February 1994, even though the embassy of that country confirmed that neither had Ukrainian nationality (the complaint contains the embassy document stating that these persons do not hold Ukrainian nationality). The courts have not sentenced the trade union officials for any failure to obey the police.
3. 467. In its communication of 24 May 1994, the complainant organization states that after presenting this complaint, persecution against the organization became even greater. The complainant organization points out that on 28 April 1994, its president distributed a document criticizing government policy and that on 30 April the police searched his residence, which is also the headquarters of the organization, without any judicial warrant and forcibly removed Mr. Klebanov and the secretary of the organization. The personal effects of these officials, as well as miscellaneous materials and documents of the organization were thrown out of the building. A large amount of equipment and documentation was damaged. Although recourse was made to the authorities including the President of the Russian Federation, no positive result was achieved. Furthermore, the complainant organization alleges that on 7 May 1994 the president of the organization and the secretary were arrested and a new attempt was made to expel them from Moscow to Ukraine; in order to avoid paralyzing the organization's activities, the president returned to Moscow. Finally, the complainant organization states that its president has nowhere to live, that the organization has been deprived of its premises and that it cannot function normally. It also alleges that the trade union's correspondence has been tampered with, including communications from the ILO concerning this complaint.

B. The Government's reply

1. 468. In its communications of 1 and 30 June 1994, the Government states that Mr. Klebanov was born in Belarus and that he lived in Ukraine until 1988. In 1977 he founded the organization of Free Trade Unions of Russia, of which he is still president. The Government adds that in 1988 he moved into a room in the apartment of Mrs. Elifanova in Moscow, which acts as the central headquarters of the Central Committee of Free Trade Unions, although the organization was never registered with the Ministry of Justice of Russia. The Government also points out that neither Mr. Klebanov nor Mrs. Sevryoukova (allegedly secretary of the organization) had permission to reside in Moscow and that in October 1993 Mr. Klebanov was arrested for residing in Moscow without permission. His appeal to the office of the Attorney-General was rejected on the grounds that the police had acted in accordance with the law. Mrs. Sevryoukova was also taken to the police in October 1993 for administrative proceedings in connection with her failure to comply with passport regulations established by the legislation in force.
2. 469. The Government states that various administrative sanctions were applied against Mr. Klebanov in 1994 on the basis of Ordinance No. 637-RM of the Intendant of Moscow, respecting the residence in Moscow of citizens with permanent residence outside the Russian Federation. It adds that on 5 January 1994 Mr. Klebanov was ordered to leave Moscow and that on 10 January and on 21 February of the same year he was expelled to his last place of residence in Ukraine. The Government also states that the same measures were taken against Mrs. Sevryoukova. The Government points out that neither complied with this expulsion order and both returned to live at the same address. After the respective administrative inquiries, it was decided that there was no need for intervention by the office of the Attorney-General as regards the above-mentioned municipal order which was in force.
3. 470. The Government adds that the owner of the residence in which the said persons were living had not concluded any lease with them, but allowed them to live there as her guests, although when she asked them to leave the apartment (headquarters of the complainant trade union), they refused to do so. The owner requested assistance from the police in evicting Mr. Klebanov and Mrs. Sevryoukova and on 30 April 1994, in the presence of witnesses, the police evicted them and suggested that they leave Moscow. The Government states that the eye witnesses confirmed that the police behaved correctly, without assaulting Mr. Klebanov or without using force, and that they did not search the apartment or destroy any documentation or material belonging to the trade union organization. The Government also states that the administrative measures taken were not related to the trade union activities of the trade unionists concerned, but were intended to prevent the said persons from committing illegal acts in violation of the legislation in force in the national territory.
4. 471. As regards the alleged deprivation of the right of the Central Committee of Free Trade Unions to use its premises, the Government states that it had been ascertained that this organization shared the said premises, on the basis of an agreement on joint activities, with the Social Centre of the Soviet of Moscow, which means that the premises in question were not made available to the trade union organization by any lease or sublease. Following the cessation of activities by the Soviet of Moscow, and in accordance with a government decree, it was decided to demolish the building in question and to prohibit the renting of its apartments. For this reason the Commission on Real Estate of Moscow refused Mr. Klebanov's application to conclude a lease, and for this reason the office of the Attorney-General did not believe it necessary to intervene in the matter.
5. 472. Finally, the Government points out that as regards Mrs. Strijneva (headmistress of the secondary school of Lobatchevski), she was dismissed in March 1994 for having repeatedly failed to carry out her tasks. As regards Mr. Anfenoguenov, a teacher from the same school, he was sanctioned on different occasions by the school authorities for excessive consumption of alcohol and minor acts of vandalism. The Government also adds that on 15 February 1994, Mr. Anfenoguenov and Mrs. Tatsenko were fined by the police for committing minor acts of vandalism.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 473. The Committee notes that the allegations in this case refer to different acts of persecution against trade union officials of the Central Committee of Free Trade Unions. In particular, the complainant organization alleges detentions, expulsions from the territory of the Russian Federation, acts of physical aggression, administrative sanctions and dismissals of its trade union officials, as well as the searching of the premises of the organization, the impossibility for it to use certain trade union premises, the destruction of material and documents belonging to the organization and tampering with its correspondence.
2. 474. As regards the expulsion on two occasions from the territory of the Russian Federation of the trade union official Mr. Klebanov (president of the Central Committee of Free Trade Unions) and the trade unionist Mrs. Sevryoukova (secretary of the Central Committee of Free Trade Unions), the Committee notes that the Government states that: (1) these persons were detained on different occasions and advised to leave the country and that their expulsion was ordered on the basis of a municipal ordinance respecting the residence of persons in the city of Moscow whose previous residence was outside the Russian Federation; (2) the previous place of residence of these persons was in Ukraine; and (3) the administrative measures taken were not related to the trade union activities of the trade unionists concerned, but were designed to prevent them from committing illegal acts contrary to the legislation in force in the territory of the Russian Federation. The Committee notes that the documentation provided by the complainant organization shows that the authorities in Ukraine deny that the trade unionists concerned hold Ukrainian nationality. The Committee draws to the Government's attention that the application of the said Ordinance should not lead to a situation in which trade unionists who in any event exercised their trade union activities in the territory of the Russian Federation are prevented from being near the workers who have elected them as their representatives. It also underlines that the expulsion to their previous place of residence (Ukraine) would mean their transfer to a country of which they are not nationals. In these circumstances, and noting furthermore that the expulsion of the president of the Central Committee of Free Trade Unions, as well as of its secretary, would seriously hamper the activities of the trade union organization, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to authorize Mr. Klebanov and Mrs. Sevryoukova to reside in the city of Moscow or in any other part of the territory of the Russian Federation they wish, in order to be able to exercise their functions in defending the interests of their members. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
3. 475. As regards the allegations concerning the searching of the central headquarters of the trade union organization in February and April 1994, the physical assault of the president during this search and the destruction of material and documents, the Committee notes that the Government states that: (1) Mr. Klebanov lived as a guest in an apartment which was also the central headquarters of the organization; (2) in April 1994 the owner of the building asked the trade union official to vacate the apartment and that following his refusal she requested assistance from the police to evict him; and (3) according to witnesses present when the police evicted him, the trade union leader was not assaulted and materials and documentation of the organization were not destroyed.
4. 476. The Committee observes that the versions of the complainant organization and the Government are contradictory. It notes that even if the owner of the building had made such a request, the eviction occurred in a place which was functioning as the premises of a trade union and was carried out by the police without any judicial warrant. Furthermore, the Government does not reply concerning the alleged searching of the trade union premises in February 1994. In these circumstances, and deploring the searches, the Committee reminds the Government of the principle that "any search of trade union premises, or of unionists' homes, without a court order constitutes an extremely serious infringement of freedom of association" (see 286th Report, Cases Nos. 1273, 1441, 1494 and 1524 (El Salvador), para. 342) and that "the entry by police or military forces into trade union premises without a judicial warrant constitutes a serious and unjustifiable interference in trade union activities" (see 284th Report, Case No. 1642 (Peru), para. 987).
5. 477. As regards the allegation of the impossibility for the trade union organization to use its trade union premises, the Committee notes that the Government states that the organization shared these premises on the basis of an agreement on joint activities with the Social Centre of the Soviet of Moscow, which means that the said premises were not made available to the trade union organization through a lease or sublease, and that following the cessation of activities of the Soviet of Moscow and in accordance with a government decree, an order was issued for the demolition of the building, which prohibited the renting of any of its apartments. The Committee also notes that following an investigation, the office of the Attorney-General decided that it was not necessary to intervene. In these circumstances, and assuming that the demolition order was a general measure which affected not only the complainant organization but all the occupants of the building, the Committee believes that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
6. 478. As regards the allegations concerning administrative sanctions against Mrs. Valeria Pavlovna Tatsenko (co-president of the Federation of Free Trade Unions of Ukraine), Vladimir Borissovitch Anfenoguenov (teacher member of the Central Committee of Free Trade Unions) and Valentina Nikolaevna Strijneva (headmistress of the secondary school of Lobatchevski), the Committee notes the Government's statement that Mrs. Strijneva was dismissed for having repeatedly failed to carry out her duties and that different administrative sanctions were applied by the school authorities against Mr. Anfenoguenov for excessive consumption of alcohol and minor acts of vandalism, and that on 15 February 1994 Mr. Anfenoguenov and Mrs. Tatsenko were fined for minor acts of vandalism. The Committee notes that the Government has stressed that there was professional misconduct by the female trade union official who was dismissed (although without specifying the exact nature of the offence) and by the other two trade unionists who were sanctioned. In this connection, taking these measures within the context of different action taken against various members of the Central Committee of Free Trade Unions, the Committee requests the Government to re-examine the dismissal and sanctions in question and in the event that the measures taken are found to be of an anti-trade union nature, to reinstate the trade union official in her workplace and to cancel the administrative sanctions. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of developments in this respect.
7. 479. The Committee also regrets that the Government has not sent its observations on the allegations concerning the detention for 48 hours of Mr. Anfenoguenov and Mrs. Strijneva, without any charges being brought against them, the detention and subsequent release of the trade union official Mr. Edouard Ivanovitch Maslov (legal inspector of the Central Committee of Free Trade Unions) and the 15-day prison sentence against the trade union official Mr. Albert Baboevitch (member of the Central Committee of Free Trade Unions). Although the trade union officials and members in question were detained for short periods of time or have completed their sentence and are now free, the Committee deplores these acts and draws to the Government's attention that "the detention of trade union leaders for activities connected with the exercise of their trade union rights is contrary to the principles of freedom of association" (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 3rd edition, 1985, para. 88); this may create an atmosphere of intimidation and fear prejudicial to the exercise of trade union rights. The Committee requests the Government to hold an inquiry to elucidate the reasons for these arrests and detentions and to keep it informed on this matter.
8. 480. Finally, the Committee also regrets that the Government has not sent its observations on the alleged tampering with the correspondence of the organization, including a communication from the ILO concerning this complaint. In this respect, the Committee reminds the Government that the tampering with correspondence is an offence which is incompatible with the free exercise of trade union rights and public freedoms and that the International Labour Conference, in its 1970 resolution on trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties stated that particular attention should be given to the right to the inviolability of correspondence and telephonic conversations. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to take steps for the holding of an inquiry and to keep it informed of developments in this respect.