Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 310, Juin 1998

1. 123. The complaint in this case is contained in a communication from the National Syndical Federation ("GMH") dated 12 March 1998. The Government sent its observations in a communication of April 1998.
2. 124. Bulgaria has ratified 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. 125. In its communication of 12 March 1998, the National Syndical Federation ("GMH") alleges that the administrative authorities sealed the offices of "GMH" headquarters in Sofia on 15 July 1997, barring access to trade union leaders and members and confiscating the office equipment and documents belonging to the organization. The complainant states that "GMH" was founded in December 1985 and that the premises it had occupied had been granted by virtue of Resolution No. 506 of 24 November 1992 of the Council of Ministers.
2. 126. The complainant adds that after the change of Government, the Council of Ministers issued Resolution No. 394 of 1 October 1993 which provided, without any reason and under political pressure, for the eviction of the "GMH" from its trade union premises and that in February 1994 the Supreme Court of Bulgaria ruled that the Government had the right to dispose of the trade union premises, but that it realized that this right violated the trade union rights of the organization. The "GMH" states that the Sofia administration subsequently issued Ordinance No. RD-15-207 in July 1997, upholding the provisions of Resolution No. 394 of the Council of Ministers, but that none of these decisions had indicated where the organization's headquarters would be located. Lastly, the complainant alleges that the administrative authorities issued an order for the enforcement of Ordinance No. RD-15-207 only three days after it was promulgated, which meant that the organization was unable to remove its equipment and documents in order to carry out its activities.

B. The Government's reply

1. 127. In its communication, the Government states that this is a case of deprivation of the illegal use of state property by the "GMH". The Government indicates that Resolution No. 506 of 1992 of the Council of Ministers, by virtue of which the premises, which belonged to the State, had been placed at the disposal of the "GMH", had been revoked by Resolution No. 394 of 1993 of the Council of Ministers, as these premises belong to the State and may not be placed at the disposal of trade union organizations. This Resolution is in conformity with the State Property Law and its provisions concerning the acquisition, maintenance and use of state property. The Government adds that an appeal had been lodged with the Supreme Court against Resolution No. 394 of 1993, but that it was denied by a Decision dated 24 February 1993.
2. 128. The Government points out that Ordinance No. RD-13-266 of 4 September 1996 of the Sofia District Administration, ordering the vacation of the premises occupied by the "GMH" Federation, is a logical consequence of the previous Resolutions mentioned above. The Government states that despite the Resolution of the Council of Ministers, the Decision of the Supreme Court and the Ordinance of the Sofia District Administration, the Federation had continued to occupy the premises illegally. The Government points out that the last Ordinance, No. RD-15-207 of 11 July 1997, concerning the eviction had been enforced on 15 July 1997. The Government refutes the statement of the "GMH" Federation to the effect that it had had only three days to organize the removal, since the Ordinance of 1997 had been issued pursuant to the earlier Ordinance of September 1996.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 129. The Committee observes that in this case the complainant alleges that in July 1997 the administrative authorities sealed the trade union premises of its headquarters in Sofia, barring access to trade union leaders and members and confiscating the equipment and documents of the organization. The Committee observes further that the complainant explains that it had been using the premises since 1992, authorization having been granted by the Government, and that in 1993, without any reason and under political pressure, the Council of Ministers had ordered its eviction, which was finally enforced in July 1997.
2. 130. The Committee notes that the Government states that: (i) the Resolution of the Council of Ministers of 1992 granting the use of the premises to the complainant organization had been revoked by the same Council of Ministers, as the premises are state property and therefore cannot be placed at the disposal of trade union organizations, under the terms of the State Property Law; (ii) the Supreme Court of Bulgaria had denied an appeal lodged by the complainant in this respect (the complainant admits that the judicial body had ruled that the Government had the right to dispose of the trade union premises); (iii) in 1996, the Sofia District Administration had issued an order for the vacation of the premises, pursuant to the provisions enacted by the Council of Ministers; and (iv) given that the National Syndical Federation "GMH" had continued to occupy the premises, on 11 July 1997 a new eviction order had been issued and was enforced on 15 July 1997.
3. 131. Concerning the vacation of the premises that the complainant had occupied in the city of Sofia, the Committee observes that the versions of the complainant and the Government concerning the reasons for the eviction order diverged: the complainant cites political pressures on the Council of Ministers, while the Government maintains that it had been intended to comply with the provisions of national legislation concerning state property. Whatever the case, the Committee observes that both parties admit that the trade union premises occupied by the National Syndical Federation "GMH" are the property of the State and that the highest judicial authority in the country has ruled that the Government had the right to dispose of these premises. In these circumstances, taking account of the fact that the complainant has enjoyed the use of premises belonging to the State as its central headquarters for a considerable time (1992-1997) and that being denied the use thereof has affected the normal conduct of its activities, the Committee invites the Government to consider the possibility, taking into account the representativeness of the complainant, of granting "GMH" premises in the city of Sofia where it may set up its headquarters.
4. 132. As regards the allegation concerning the confiscation of office equipment and documentation of the complainant organization during the eviction from the trade union premises which it had occupied, the Committee notes with regret that the Government has not sent observations in this respect, and therefore draws its attention to the fact that confiscation of trade union property by the authorities, without a court order, constitutes an infringement of the right of trade unions to own property and undue interference in trade unions' activities, contrary to the principles of freedom of association. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps without delay to ensure that all of the equipment and documents confiscated from the complainant are returned to it, and to keep it informed of developments in this respect.