Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 308, Novembre 1997

1. 481. The International Graphical Federation (IGF) submitted a complaint against the Government of Latvia in a communication dated 31 January 1996, alleging violations of Convention No. 87. Further information was received from the IGF in communications dated 9 March 1996 and 3 July 1997. In a communication of 9 February 1996, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) associated itself with the complaint.
2. 482. In response to the allegations, the Government transmitted observations and information in a communication of 12 August 1997.
3. 483. Latvia has ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 484. In its communication of 31 January 1996, the complainant alleges that the Government, through the municipal authorities of Riga, has violated Convention No. 87 in threatening to evict the Latvian affiliate of IGF, the Latvian Book Industry Trade Union (LGAS), from its headquarters and refusing to return its property assets which were confiscated during the occupation period. The complainant contends that in so doing, the Government is attempting to deprive LGAS of its lawful heritage and effectively preventing it from operating.
2. 485. As background to the complaint, the IGF notes that LGAS was founded in 1919, forcibly disbanded during the Soviet occupation, and reconstituted in 1991, pursuant to its 1926 statutes, and registered with the Ministry of Justice in the same year. Prior to the Second World War, it was affiliated to the International Bookbinder's Secretariat, a forerunner of the IGF. In June 1992, LGAS, as the legal successor of the pre-war member organization, became a member of the IGF on the basis of reaffiliation, having been prevented by force majeur from belonging to the IGF in the intervening period. The complainant states that a number of pensioners who are members of LGAS have retained their membership books from the pre-war period and annexed to its complaint some sample copies.
3. 486. Regarding the particular building which is the subject of this complaint (43/45 Lacplesa Street, Riga), the complainant states that it was built in 1931 as the headquarters of LGAS, and financed through membership subscriptions. It was at that time owned by the Health Insurance Fund of LGAS. During the Soviet occupation, the building was expropriated by the State and administered by the Riga municipal authorities and LGAS was forcibly disbanded. Graphical workers were compelled to belong to the state-controlled Cultural Workers' Union (CWU). In 1991, the graphical workers decided to reconstitute their trade union and ceased to be members of CWU.
4. 487. The complainant asserts that LGAS should be able to recover its assets and use them for their originally intended purpose. It notes that on 2 June 1995, the District Court of Riga Centre held that the LGAS Health Insurance Fund was the rightful owner of the property in question. However, the municipal authorities secured a second hearing in the Civil Division of the High Court, which was scheduled for 2-3 September 1997.
5. 488. In its communication of 3 July 1997, the complainant states that the Riga authorities had at that time again taken steps to evict LGAS from its headquarters.

B. The Government's reply

1. 489. The Government in its reply contends that there has been no violation of the Convention in this case, as Convention No. 87 does not refer to the rights of acquisition and holding property, but rather to the rights of workers and employers to establish and join organizations without interference by the public authorities. It states that property rights are regulated by national law, which permits trade unions, employers, public organizations, etc. to own and administer property.
2. 490. The Government acknowledges that during the 50 years of Soviet occupation, the property rights of many were disregarded. It states that upon regaining independence, legislation regarding denationalization and the restoration of property rights was adopted. The law on "Denationalization of Housing Property in the Republic of Latvia", adopted on 30 October 1991, sets out criteria regarding who is entitled to reclaim property that was nationalized or otherwise expropriated and the procedure to be followed. According to this law, trade unions are not the type of organization eligible to reclaim property. In any event, states the Government, as trade unions were disbanded during the occupation, the present organizations cannot be considered a continuation of the former ones, since they have had to start fresh and do not have their previous members.
3. 491. The Government states that the property in question is a property of the State; pursuant to Order No. 151 of 25 March 1996, the management of the property was put in the hands of the state stock company, State Real Estate Agency, and LGAS leases the property from the Agency.
4. 492. Regarding the pending court case, the Government states that LGAS has not yet exhausted the procedures available pursuant to national law since the case for the restoration of the property rights is still before the court and a decision has not yet been rendered.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 493. The Committee notes the complainant's allegations in this case that the Government, through the municipal authorities, has threatened to evict the Latvian Book Industry Trade Union (LGAS) from its premises. The complainant further alleges that the union is the rightful owner of these premises and that, despite a District Court judgement to this effect, the Government has delayed the effective restitution of this property to the union by challenging the District Court's judgement.
2. 494. Firstly, as concerns the Government's indication that the union has not yet exhausted the procedures available under national law since the case for restoration of the property rights is still before the courts, the Committee would recall that, although the use of internal legal procedures is undoubtedly a factor to be taken into consideration, it has always considered that, in view of its responsibilities, its competence to examine allegations is not subject to the exhaustion of national procedures. (See Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, Annex I, para. 33.)
3. 495. The Committee notes by way of background to this case that, according to the complainant, the LGAS was originally founded in 1919 and built its headquarters, financed through membership subscriptions, in 1931. The building in question was then expropriated by the State during the Soviet regime and the LGAS was forcibly disbanded and graphical workers were compelled to belong to the state-controlled union. In 1991, the graphical workers decided to reconstitute the LGAS pursuant to its 1926 statutes.
4. 496. The Committee notes the Government's admission that property rights were often disregarded during the 50 years of the Soviet regime and therefore, upon regaining independence, legislation regarding denationalization and the restoration of property rights was adopted. Noting however that, according to the Government, this legislation is not applicable to trade unions, the Committee insists on the importance of trade union organizations being treated as any other organization and calls upon the Government to ensure that they are not discriminated against in this regard. Moreover, the Government contends that there has been no violation in this case since Convention No. 87 does not refer to the rights of acquisition and holding property. Such matters are regulated rather by national law.
5. 497. As concerns the issue of ownership of the property in question, the Committee notes the Government's contention that a present organization cannot be considered to be a continuation of a former union which was disbanded during the occupation. The complainant points out, however, that the LGAS was reconstituted according to its former statutes and provides copies of the pre-war membership books of surviving members. As concerns the dissolution of the LGAS during the previous regime and the sequestering of its property by the State, the Committee would recall the general principle that the assets of a dissolved organization should be provisionally sequestered and eventually distributed among its former members or handed over to the organization that succeeds it, meaning the organization or organizations which pursue the aims for which the dissolved union was established, and which pursue them in the same spirit. (See Digest, para. 684.)
6. 498. The Committee notes, however, that in the special circumstances of the case in question, the sequestration lasted over 50 years. While noting that the LGAS would appear to pursue the same aims of the previously disbanded organization, the Committee recognizes that particular difficulties are involved in this case in particular because of the long lapse of time and any eventual successive legal obligations which may have arisen. The Committee does note however that, in keeping with the above-mentioned principle, the District Court has viewed the claims of the LGAS as legitimate. It expresses the hope that, on this basis, an arrangement will be promptly worked out which is acceptable to the parties concerned and would allow the LGAS to recover the totality or the equivalent of the assets it previously held. Noting however that the municipal authorities have lodged an appeal to the High Court, the Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the Court's judgement as soon as it is handed down.
7. 499. The Committee notes with regret that the Government has not replied to the allegations of threats of eviction made by the complainant, particularly in light of the Government's own indication that the premises are currently being leased by the union. The Committee considers that threats of eviction of this kind interfere with the effective functioning of trade unions and it requests the Government to ensure that the LGAS be enabled to continue with its lease until the property rights question has been resolved.