Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 316, Juin 1999

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 24. The Committee last examined this case at its November 1998 meeting. The Committee requested the Government to take steps without delay to ensure that all the property confiscated from the complainant would be returned to it. With respect to the allocation of premises to the GMH, the Committee invited the complainant to request that premises be allocated to it under the terms of the State Property Law, as the Government had suggested.
2. 25. In a communication of 3 December 1998, the complainant states that no constructive proposal to solve this problem has yet emerged and in fact the district administration has intensified the conflict by ordering GMH to report on 9 December 1998 to receive some personal effects and threatening court action. The letter from the District Governor dated 23 November 1998 is attached to the complainant's communication. The complainant states that in the letter the complaint before the ILO is stated to be groundless and unlawful, that the complainant has committed some unlawful self-governing actions, which the complainant denies, and the letter does not address the issue of the return of the movable property, money and documentation of the GMH. The complainant states further that the letter does not address the Government's obligations under the labour legislation or the Committee's recommendations.
3. 26. The Government forwarded its response to the further information provided by the complainant in a communication of 8 April 1999. The Government states that as a result of the legal eviction executed pursuant to Ordinance No. RD15-207 of 11 June 1997, the GMH was deprived of use of the premises in question. The Ordinance was executed on 15 July 1997 with no representative of GMH being present. The refusal of the President of the GMH to receive a copy of the Ordinance was certified in accordance with Bulgarian law. The premises were granted to the Ministry of Trade which obtained them on legal grounds with a due protocol by a commission appointed by the Minister of Trade for this purpose. In view of the absence of a representative of GMH, and in an effort to facilitate the use of the premises, all the office equipment and documentation belonging to GMH was locked and sealed in one of the rooms. The Government asserts that the reason for this action was not to limit GMH's access to the equipment and the documentation, but to ensure their safe-keeping while the new occupants were moving in. The Government states further that keeping this property safe and intact results in the premises not being used fully, thus entailing much unnecessary expense. According to the Government, in an effort to avoid this and as an act of good will, the district authorities sent the letter referred to by the complainant inviting the President of GMH to take away the organization's property on the date set by the present occupier of the premises. The President did not respond to this invitation. The Government states further that in view of this unreasonable lack of cooperation, and not able to react in any other way, the District Governor finalized his legal obligations by putting into force Decision No. 394 of 1 October 1993 of the Council of Ministers revoking the permission for GMH to occupy the property in question.
4. 27. The Committee notes that according to the letter of 23 November 1998 from the District Governor to the President of the GMH, the Government rejects the complainant's claim for the continued use of the premises, and describes the allegations in the complaint to the Committee as "groundless and unlawful". The Committee must recall the principle that "in a situation in which workers' organizations consider that they do not enjoy the freedoms essential for the performance of their functions, they should be entitled to demand the recognition of these freedoms and such claims should be considered to form part of legitimate trade union activities" (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 28). The Committee notes the non-conciliatory tenor of the letter generally. In the letter, the complainant is accused of having violated the law as a result of "self-governing actions". The nature of these actions is not specified. While the letter goes on to inv
   • ite the President of the GMH to a meeting at an appointed time to take back possession of the personal items, it also states that refusing to attend will result in the matter being brought before the courts and the prosecutor's office. The Committee must urge the Government to make constructive efforts, without delay, to ensure that all the property confiscated from the complainant is returned to it. With respect to the allocation of the premises, the Committee again invites the complainant to request such allocation pursuant to the State Property Law, and requests the Government to look favourably upon such a request despite the fact that Decision No. 394 has been put into force. It further requests the Government to keep the Committee informed in this regard.