Workmen's Compensation (Accidents) Convention, 1925 (No. 17) - Hungary (Ratification: 1928)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of ratified Conventions on Workmen’s Compensation, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 12 (agriculture), 17 (accidents) and 42 (occupational diseases) (revised) together.

The Committee notes the observations of the employees’ representatives in the National ILO Council on the application of Convention No. 17, communicated with the Government’s report.

Article 1 of Convention No. 12 and Article 2(2) of Convention No. 17. Coverage of seasonal agricultural workers, seasonal workers in tourism and occasional workers. (a) Pension insurance. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, following the adoption in 2010 of Act No. LXXV on Simplified Employment, seasonal workers in agriculture and tourism and occasional workers are only entitled to healthcare services in case of employment injury, and asked the Government to reconsider the situation with a view to limiting the categories of seasonal or occasional workers who may be excluded by law from pension insurance coverage to those authorized by Convention No. 17, and to report on the number of workers actually excluded from the benefits provided under the pension insurance scheme. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report concerning the possibility for workers in simplified employment, excluded from pension insurance coverage under the Social Security Act, to qualify for pension benefits and accident-related health services through the payment of a tax stamp (section 10(1)(b) of Act No. LXXV of 2010). The Committee recalls however that, according to Article 2(2) of Convention No. 17, only specific categories of workers can be excluded from compensation for occupational injuries and that workers of a casual nature can only be excluded if the work they perform is not related to their employers’ trade or business. In addition, Article 1 of Convention No. 12 requires the extension to all agricultural wage-earners of all legal provisions for the compensation of work injuries. The Committee once again requests the Government to consider the possibility of limiting the categories of seasonal or occasional workers excluded from workers’ compensation to those established by Convention No. 12 and to keep it informed of any measures taken with a view to ensuring full compliance with Conventions Nos 12 and 17. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether it envisages to extend the payment of the tax stamp to cover work accident-related benefits other than healthcare in order to provide the protection required under Conventions Nos 12 and 17.

Article 1 of Convention No. 12 and Article 2(2) of Convention No. 17. (b) Health insurance – medical care benefits. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous request concerning the entitlement of injured workers in simplified employment to all necessary medical care and devices free of charge.

Article 7 of Convention No. 17. Constant attendance by another person. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how the national legislation and practice gave effect to Article 7 of the Convention which requires that in cases where the work injury results in incapacity of such a nature that the injured worker must have the constant help of another person, additional compensation shall be provided. The Committee notes that according to Act No. III of 1993, a Nursing Fee of a basic amount of 32,600 Hungarian forint (HUF) (Central Budget Act 2018), doubled in case of significant incapacity, is granted to an adult relative who cares for a person in need of long-term care at home (section 40 of Act No. III of 1993). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on whether other payments or services, free of charge, are available to workers who have sustained an occupational injury to guarantee that, when their state requires constant help, they can afford to pay for, or receive, assistance from persons other than relatives, such as professional caregivers.

Application of Convention No. 17 in practice. The Committee notes, as indicated by the Government, that there is no specific social security branch for employment injury, but that various types of social insurance benefits are payable, alongside the compensation for which employers are liable under the Labour Code. Concerning the rules for compensation, the Committee further notes that, according to the employees’ representatives in the National ILO Council, the new Labour Code promulgated by Act No. I. of 2012 introduced a substantial change in the provisions on employers’ liability for damages in case of accidents at work. According to these observations, while employers’ liability remains objective, and the burden of proof remains with the employer in the case of exemption from liability, the new rules widen the range of exemptions from liability, thus limiting the scope of interpretation of employers’ liability by national tribunals. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the functioning of the current provisions regulating employers’ liability for damages in case of accidents at work and of the way they are applied in practice, and to continue providing examples of relevant judicial decisions.

Article 2 of Convention No. 42. Proof of the occupational origin of disease. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate measures with a view to re-establishing the principle of presumption of occupational origin of occupational diseases at least with respect to the diseases established by the Schedule appended to the Convention. The Committee notes, as indicated by the Government that, apart from Annex 2 of Decree No. 27/1996 (VIII.28) NM, including the list of the occupational diseases to be reported, this also provides the possibility to recognize a disease that can be identified as occupational in origin, based on factors such as working environment and conditions. The Committee once again requests the Government to confirm that a presumption of occupational origin without the requirement to prove the causal link with the occupation exists, at least in cases of the diseases listed in the Annex 2 to the Decree that are in accordance with the Schedule appended to Article 2 of the Convention, when those affect workers engaged in the trades, industries or processes placed in the said Schedule.

Application of Convention No. 42 in practice. The Committee notes the indication provided by the Government that occupational diseases are underreported. For a total of over 4 million employed persons in 2016, the Government reported 245 cases of occupational diseases in 2016, and 131 sick pays were paid. The Committee requests the Government to indicate measures taken to improve the reporting of occupational diseases with a view to giving full effect to the Convention in practice.

The Committee has been informed that, based on the recommendations of the Standards Review Mechanism Tripartite Working Group (SRM tripartite working group), the Governing Body has decided that member States for which Conventions Nos 17 and 42 are in force should be encouraged to ratify the more recent Employment Injury Benefits Convention, 1964 [Schedule I amended in 1980] (No. 121), or the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102), accepting its Part VI (see GB.328/LILS/2/1). Conventions Nos 121 and 102 reflect the more modern approach to employment injury benefits. The Committee therefore encourages the Government to follow up the Governing Body’s decision at its 328th Session (October–November 2016) approving the recommendations of the SRM tripartite working group and to consider ratifying Conventions Nos 121 or 102 (Part VI) as the most up-to-date instruments in this subject area.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Article 5 of the Convention. Conditions of eligibility – disability pension. In its previous comments, the Committee observed that some of the eligibility conditions for compensation in case of permanent incapacity laid down in Act No. LXXXIII of 1997 on mandatory healthcare benefits (Act No. LXXXIII of 1997) and Act No. CXCI of 2011 on benefits due to persons with reduced working capacities (Act No. CXCI of 2011) were not fully in line with the guiding principles contained in international standards on employment injury protection, including this Convention. Noting in particular the qualifying period of three years of insurance for entitlement to disability benefit set out in Act No. CXCI of 2011, the Committee asked the Government to indicate how it intended to give effect to the long established principle of international social security law, contained in this Convention, that benefits due in case of a work-related accident shall not be subjected to qualifying periods. In this respect, the Committee notes, as stated by the Government in its report, that injured workers who do not meet the conditions for eligibility to the disability pension are entitled to an accident allowance if they have a permanent health impairment of 13 per cent and over (section 57 of Act No. LXXXIII of 1997). The Committee further notes that the amount of accident allowance corresponds to 8, 10, 15 or 30 per cent of the monthly average income, depending on the degree of disablement of the injured worker (section 58(2) of Act No. LXXXIII of 1997), which is substantially lower than the amount of the disability pension, ranging from 40 to 70 per cent of the workers’ average monthly wage (section 12 of Act No. CXCI of 2011), depending on his/her degree of disability. The Committee recalls that the objective of the Convention is to ensure that workers who suffer personal injury due to an industrial accident receive compensation to make up for the resulting loss of earning capacity they incur, based on their former earnings and their degree of disability. For such purpose, the Workmen’s Compensation (Minimum Scale) Recommendation, 1925 (No. 22), Part I, calls for: (1) a periodical payment equivalent to two-thirds of the worker’s annual earnings to be paid in the case of permanent total incapacity; and (2) a proportion thereof to be paid in case of partial permanent incapacity, calculated in reference to the reduction of earning power caused by the injury. The Committee observes that, while the level of disability pension is in line with this provision, the level of accident allowance set out in Act No. LXXXIII of 1997 is far from the recommended levels, resulting in amounts of compensation that are significantly lower than the previous earnings of the injured worker, even in cases where the degree of incapacity is such as to prevent the worker from earning income on the labour market. The Committee considers that compensation for total or substantial permanent incapacity in an amount or at a level that is not sufficient to allow an injured worker and his/her family to enjoy standards of living comparable to those they would have enjoyed if the accident hadn’t occurred would not be in line with the objectives of the Convention. On this basis, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that injured workers who suffer a permanent incapacity, total or substantial, due to a work-related accident and who do not fulfil the three year qualifying period for entitlement to a disability pension are provided with compensation at a level that is sufficient to enable the injured worker to sustain him/herself and his/her family in conditions comparable to those they enjoyed prior to the accident, and in any event, comparable to that of the disability pension.

With respect to the condition that workers do not perform remunerated work, the Committee recalls that ILO standards do not preclude the victims of occupational accidents the possibility to use their remaining working capacity in order to complement their pensions with some earnings gained out of employment. Finally, with respect to the condition that prohibits the recipients of the employment injury benefit from receiving any other cash benefit, the Committee also recalls that the Convention permits the accumulation of employment injury benefits and other cash benefits. The Committee once again hopes that the Government will adjust the qualifying conditions for entitlement to disability benefit, where the disability is due to an employment injury, with a view to ensuring full compliance with the Convention and requests the Government to keep it informed of any measures taken to that effect.

The Committee has been informed that, based on the recommendations of the Standards Review Mechanism Tripartite Working Group (SRM tripartite working group), the Governing Body has decided that member States for which this Convention is in force should be encouraged to ratify the more recent Employment Injury Benefits Convention, 1964 [Schedule I amended in 1980] (No. 121), or the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102), accepting its Part VI (see GB.328/LILS/2/1). Conventions Nos 121 and 102 reflect the more modern approach to employment injury benefits. The Committee therefore encourages the Government to follow-up the Governing Body’s decision at its 328th Session (October–November 2016) approving the recommendations of the SRM tripartite working group and to consider ratifying Conventions Nos 121 or 102 (Part VI) as the most up-to-date instruments in this subject area.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Coverage by social insurance of seasonal agricultural workers, seasonal workers in tourism and occasional workers. (a) Pension insurance. The Committee notes that, following the adoption in 2010 of Act No. LXXV on simplified employment, as of 1 April 2010, seasonal workers in agriculture and tourism and occasional workers are entitled exclusively to accidental health-care benefits among the accident benefits. The reason for this is that persons working in simplified employment are not regarded as insured eligible to the full scope of benefits, it being understood that, according to the general rules of social insurance, it is possible on the basis of an agreement to have access to benefits other than accidental health-care benefits.

The Committee understands therefore that, in its current state, the national legislation seems to allow all seasonal workers in agriculture and tourism and all occasional workers to be excluded from social insurance for the purpose of pension entitlements regardless of whether the work they perform is or is not related to their employer’s trade or business. The Committee observes in this respect that such exclusion would go beyond what is permitted by the Convention which only authorizes the exclusion of “persons whose employment is of a casual nature and who are employed otherwise than for the purpose of the employer’s trade or business” (Articles 2(2)(a) of the Convention or Article 4(2)(a) of the Employment Injury Benefits Convention, 1964 [Schedule I amended in 1980] (No. 121)). Recalling that Hungary is also party to the Workmen’s Compensation (Agriculture) Convention, 192l (No. 12), the Committee asks the Government to reconsider the situation with a view to limiting the categories of seasonal or occasional workers who may be excluded by law from pension insurance coverage to those authorized by Convention No. 17, and to report on the number of workers actually excluded from pension insurance.

(b) Health insurance. The Government indicates in its report that, following an amendment in 2011 of section 54 of the Act on simplified employment, in case of health impairment due to an accident at work or occupational disease, from 1 January 2012, the cost of the pharmaceutical products, medical supplies and health care prescribed, as well as the repair cost of medical devices, is fully supported by the social insurance. In case of an external impact recognized as an occupational accident (occupational disease) by a resolution, the costs of the necessary services will not be paid, not even if the service concerned is not compensated by social insurance at 100 per cent. The Committee asks the Government to clarify by way of practical examples in which cases the victims of occupational accidents and diseases within the above categories would not be entitled to all necessary medical care and devices free of charge.

Constant attendance by another person. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how the national legislation and practice give effect to Article 7 of the Convention which requires that in cases where the injury results in incapacity of such a nature that the injured workman must have the constant help of another person, additional compensation shall be provided.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Conditions for the eligibility for benefits. The rules on compensation in case of permanent incapacity or death are laid down in Act No. LXXXIII on mandatory health-care benefits of 1997 and Act No. CXCI on benefits due to persons with reduced working capacities of 2011. As of 1 January 2012, persons are eligible to receive a new flat-rate benefit in the framework of health insurance if they fulfil the following four conditions: (i) their health status is maximum 60 per cent on the evaluation basis; (ii) they have been insured for at least three years prior to the submission of the application; (iii) they do not perform remunerated work; and (iv) they do not receive any other cash benefits. The new system does not have a special category for the risk of disability due to accidents at work. The Government also states in its report that, upon discussing the report on the application of the Convention with the National ILO Council, the workers’ side considered the new three years’ qualifying period to go against the provisions of the Convention. The Government observed in this respect that Article 5 of the Convention is being given effect by Act No. LXXXIII and by Act No. CXCI mentioned above which, together, guarantee compensation for everyone in case of occupational accident.

With respect to condition (ii) above, the Committee wishes to observe that it is a long established principle of international social security law that benefits due in case of employment injuries shall not be subjected to qualifying periods even where the national social security systems do not differentiate between employment and other injuries. Neither this Convention to which Hungary is party, nor the Employment Injury Benefits Convention, 1964 [Schedule I amended in 1980] (No. 121), which represents the most up-to-date international social security standard in the area of employment injuries, authorize such condition to be imposed. The Committee would therefore like the Government to indicate in its next report how it intends to give effect to this requirement of the Convention. With respect to condition (iii) above, the Committee wishes to observe that ILO standards do not preclude the victims of occupational accidents the possibility to use their remaining working capacity in order to complement their pensions with some earnings gained out of employment.

Finally, with respect to condition (iv) above, which prohibits the recipients of the employment injury benefit from receiving any other cash benefit, the Committee wishes to emphasize that the Convention permits the accumulation of employment injury benefits and other cash benefits and expressly requires another cash benefit to be paid to the injured worker in need of the constant help of another person. The Committee hopes that explanations of these guiding principles contained in international standards on compensation of employment injuries would help the Government to improve the protection of the victims of occupational accidents in national law and practice and adjust accordingly the new qualifying conditions for the flat-rate benefit under the health insurance introduced as from 1 January 2012.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with interest the indications provided by the Government concerning the manner in which the national legislation gives effect to Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention in relation, respectively, to the payment of benefit in the form of periodical payments in the event of death or permanent incapacity of below 67 per cent resulting from an employment accident, and the waiting period for cash benefit. The Committee also reiterates its request for detailed information on the manner in which effect is given in practice to Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention respecting the right of victims of employment accidents to medical, surgical and pharmaceutical aid free of charge and the supply and renewal of such artificial limbs and surgical appliances as are recognized to be necessary.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

1. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its latest report. It notes in particular the adoption in 1997 of several laws on social protection, in particular Act LXXX on persons entitled to social security benefits and private pensions, Act LXXXI on pensions insurance and Act LXXXIII on compulsory health insurance. However, the Committee does not have a translation of the abovementioned Act on compulsory health insurance. Hence, it would like the Government to provide additional information on the way effect is given to Articles 6, 9 and 10 of the Convention. It asks it to indicate the relevant legislative provisions in this regard.

2. Article 5 of the Convention. The Committee notes that, under section 33 of Act LXXXI on pensions insurance, any person who as a result of an occupational accident has lost at least 67 per cent of his capacity to work receives an invalidity pension. It would like the Government to indicate how, and under which provisions, permanent incapacity of less than 67 per cent is compensated.