Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Czechia (Ratification: 1996)

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour applicable to public officials for neglect of duty. The Committee previously noted that section 330(1) of the Penal Code of 2009 provides that an official who, by performing his/her duties, obstructs the accomplishment of an important task by negligence or makes it substantially more difficult, is punishable with imprisonment (which involves compulsory prison labour, under the legislation on the execution of prison sentences) for a term of up to one year. According to section 330(2)(a), (b) and (c), sanctions of imprisonment for a term of up to three years may be imposed on officials who cause serious disturbance in the operation of a state administration authority or other public authority, or cause substantial damage. The Government indicated that, although section 330 does not refer to actions that represent a direct threat to the safety, health or life of persons, it is applicable to serious actions hindering public officers’ obligations, such as a mistake committed by a law enforcement authority which would prevent the conviction of an offender. The Committee noted the two court decisions provided by the Government with a view to clarifying the scope of section 330, particularly with regard to the interpretation of the term “important task”, as well as the criminal liability of judges.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that cases of violation of labour discipline are handled primarily through disciplinary proceedings, and that the criminal sanction applies only in extreme cases where the acts in question cannot be classified only as a violation of the labour discipline, but thwart or make the fulfilment of an important task substantially difficult. The Government indicates that the purpose of section 330 of the Penal Code is to protect the public order, which lies beyond the scope of “labour discipline” under Article 1(c) of the Convention. Referring to the court decisions attached to its previous report, the Government states that the current wording of this provision is considered as satisfactory, and that no cases of unreasonable or undesirable decisions have been identified.

However, the Committee once again points out that questions were raised in the abovementioned court decisions regarding the interpretation of the term of “important task”, as well as the determination of its scope of application in practice, due to the absence of a clear explanation by the law or by the jurisprudence. The Committee therefore reminds the Government that penal provisions applicable to persons employed in the public service which are worded in general terms, are broad enough to be likely to fall within the scope of the Convention in certain cases, such as provisions laying down sanctions involving compulsory labour for neglect of duty by public employees (see General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraph 311). The Committee recalls that, pursuant to Article 1(c) of the Convention, sanctions involving compulsory labour for breaches of labour discipline may only be applied if such breaches impair or are likely to endanger the operation of essential services, or in cases of wilful acts which would endanger the safety, health or life of individuals. The Committee therefore once again expresses the firm hope that measures will be taken in order to restrict the application of section 330(1) and (2)(a), (b) and (c) to essential services in the strict sense of the term or to situations where the life, health and safety of persons are in danger due to wilful acts, so as to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention.