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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social, or economic system. The Committee notes that as per section 184(1) “defamation” of the Penal Code, anyone who makes a false statement about another person which may significantly damage the reputation of that person, including by causing harm at work, disrupting his or her family relations or causing another serious harm, is punishable with imprisonment for up to one year (involving compulsory prison labour under section 29 (1) of the Execution of Prison Sentence Act of 1999). The same action committed through media, such as print, film, radio, and television, is punishable with imprisonment for up to two years, according to section 184(2) of the Penal Code. The Committee further notes that the United Nations Human Rights Committee, in its 2019 concluding observations, expressed concern that the vague definition of defamation, compounded by its criminalization and by the criminal liability of legal persons, could result in a chilling effect on the exercise of freedom of expression by the general public, and particularly by the media (CCPR/C/CZE/CO/4, paragraph 34).

The Committee recalls that laws against defamation, when defined in wide or general terms, may lead to the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or as a punishment for the expression of political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social, or economic system, which is prohibited under Article 1(a) of the Convention (2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 304).

The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, may be imposed under section 184 (1) of the Criminal Code for the peaceful expression of political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social, or economic system. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 184 (1) of the Penal Code in practice, including examples of court decisions with an indication of the facts leading to the convictions and the penalties imposed, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain its scope.

Article 1(c). 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, involving compulsory prison labour under section 29 (1) of the Execution of Prison Sentence Act of 1999, 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 caused serious disturbance in the operation of a state administration authority or other public authority, or a legal or natural person who is an entrepreneur, or caused substantial damage. The Committee recalled that the provisions of section 330 of the Penal Code are worded in terms broad enough to be likely to fall within the scope of Article 1(c) of the Convention which prohibits the use of compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline.

In its reply, the Government reiterates its previous statement that section 330 of the Penal Code applies only in extreme cases in which a fulfilment of an important task has been obstructed or significantly hindered because of the negligence by a public official. The Government further indicates that breaches of labour discipline not leading to such consequences are not qualified as a criminal offence and are handled through disciplinary proceedings. The Government also points out that the term "important task" applied in section 330 of the Penal Code is defined by a court on a case-by-case basis depending on the nature of activities which were obstructed or significantly hindered due to the negligence by a public official. The Committee further takes note of the examples of the court decisions rendered under section 330 of the Penal Code, which concerned, for example, the cases of negligence by public officials which might have adversely affected the conduction of criminal and administrative investigations.

Recalling that section 330(1) and (2)(a), (b) and (c) of the Penal Code is worded in terms general enough that can lead to a broad interpretation of its scope and, therefore, may fall under the scope of Article 1(c) of the Convention, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the application of section 330(1) and (2)(a), (b) and (c) is restricted to the situations in which breaches of labour discipline impair or are likely to endanger the operation of essential services in the strict sense of the term, or to circumstances where the life or health of persons are in danger. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the examples of court decisions handed down under section 330 of the Penal Code, with an indication of the facts leading to the convictions and the penalties imposed.

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

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.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

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 contains a provision similar to section 159(1) of the old Code of 1961, which had been the subject of the Committee’s comments for a number of years. Pursuant to section 330(1) 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 Committee notes the Government’s indication 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 also notes 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. While noting this information, the Committee once again points out 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, and not where they are caused by negligence. The Committee therefore 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.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour applicable to public officials for neglect of duty. Referring to its earlier comments, the Committee notes the adoption of the new Penal Code (Act No. 40/2009 Coll.) which has replaced the 1961 Penal Code. The Committee notes with regret that section 330(1) of the new Penal Code contains a provision similar to section 159(1) of the old Code, which has been the subject of the Committee’s comments since a number of years. In fact, under section 330(1), 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 for a term of up to one year (which involves compulsory prison labour, under the legislation on the execution of prison sentences). Under section 330(2)(a),(b) and (c), sanctions of imprisonment for a term of up to three years (involving compulsory labour) 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 Committee notes the Government’s explanations concerning the interpretation of section 330 of the new Penal Code, which are very similar to those concerning the interpretation of section 159 of the old Code provided by the Government in its earlier reports. The Government indicates, in particular, that section 330 is applicable only in serious cases of violation of an official’s duty due to negligence, which results in the obstruction of the accomplishment of an important task or in making its accomplishment substantially more difficult.

While taking due note of this information, the Committee observes that section 330 of the new Penal Code is worded in very general terms, broad enough to be likely to fall within the scope of the Convention. The Committee refers in this connection to the explanations contained in paragraphs 175–178 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, in which it considered that sanctions involving compulsory labour for breaches of labour discipline (including neglect of duty by public employees) may be compatible with the Convention only if such breaches impair or are liable to endanger the operation of essential services or which are committed either in the exercise of functions that are essential to safety or in circumstances where life or health are in danger. On the other hand, it may be recalled that, in so far as the labour discipline is concerned, it is always possible, without contravening the Convention, to have recourse to other disciplinary penalties, which do not include compulsory labour.

The Committee therefore hopes that, in the light of the above explanations, measures will be taken to amend section 330(1) and (2)(a),(b) and (c), so as to restrict its application to essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services, the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) or, more generally, to circumstances where the life or health of persons are in danger. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide the information on the application of the above provision in practice, including copies of the relevant court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to its previous comments. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour applicable to public officials for neglect of duty. Referring to its earlier comments, the Committee has noted the Government’s explanations concerning the interpretation of section 159(1) of the Penal Code, under which a public official who by negligence thwarts (foils) or makes substantially more difficult (obstructs) the execution of an important task shall be punishable with imprisonment (which involves compulsory prison labour, under the legislation on the execution of prison sentences). The Government indicates that section 159(1) is applicable only in serious cases of violation of a public officer’s obligations, such as foiling or substantial obstruction of a significant task related to the officer’s authoritative and decision-making power. The Committee has also noted the information on the application of section 159(1) in practice, including the information on the number of sentences of imprisonment pronounced in 2003–05 and extracts of two court decisions imposing sentences of imprisonment for acts which may amount to abuse of authority by police officers.

While having duly noted this information, the Committee observes that
section 159(1) of the Penal Code is worded in very general terms, broad enough to be likely to fall within the scope of the Convention. The Committee refers in this connection to the explanations contained in paragraphs 175–178 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, in which it considered that sanctions involving compulsory labour for breaches of labour discipline (including neglect of duty by public employees) may be compatible with the Convention only if such breaches impair or are liable to endanger the operation of essential services or which are committed either in the exercise of functions that are essential to safety or in circumstances where life or health are in danger. On the other hand, it may be recalled that, in so far as the labour discipline is concerned, it is always possible, without contravening the Convention, to have recourse to other disciplinary penalties, which do not include compulsory labour.

The Committee therefore reiterates its hope that measures will be taken, on the occasion of the future revision of the Penal Code, to amend section 159(1) so as to restrict its application to essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services, the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) or, more generally, to circumstances where the life or health of persons are in danger. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide the information on the application of the above provision in practice, including copies of the relevant court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Article 1, subparagraph c, of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour applicable to public officials for neglect of duty. Referring to its earlier comments, the Committee has noted the Government’s explanations concerning the interpretation of section 159(1) of the Penal Code, under which a public official who by negligence thwarts (foils) or makes substantially more difficult (obstructs) the execution of an important task shall be punishable with imprisonment (which involves compulsory prison labour, under the legislation on the execution of prison sentences). The Government indicates that section 159(1) is applicable only in serious cases of violation of a public officer’s obligations, such as foiling or substantial obstruction of a significant task related to the officer’s authoritative and decision-making power. The Committee has also noted the information on the application of section 159(1) in practice, including the information on the number of sentences of imprisonment pronounced in 2003–05 and extracts of two court decisions imposing sentences of imprisonment for acts which may amount to abuse of authority by police officers.

While having duly noted this information, the Committee observes that section 159(1) of the Penal Code is worded in very general terms, broad enough to be likely to fall within the scope of the Convention. The Committee refers in this connection to the explanations contained in paragraphs 175–178 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, in which it considered that sanctions involving compulsory labour for breaches of labour discipline (including neglect of duty by public employees) may be compatible with the Convention only if such breaches impair or are liable to endanger the operation of essential services or which are committed either in the exercise of functions that are essential to safety or in circumstances where life or health are in danger. On the other hand, it may be recalled that, in so far as the labour discipline is concerned, it is always possible, without contravening the Convention, to have recourse to other disciplinary penalties, which do not include compulsory labour.

The Committee therefore reiterates its hope that measures will be taken, on the occasion of the future revision of the Penal Code, to amend section 159(1) so as to restrict its application to essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services, the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) or, more generally, to circumstances where the life or health of persons are in danger. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide the information on the application of the above provision in practice, including copies of the relevant court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

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

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour applicable to public officials for neglect of duty. Referring to its earlier comments, the Committee has noted the Government’s explanations concerning the interpretation of section 159(1) of the Penal Code, under which a public official who by negligence thwarts (foils) or makes substantially more difficult (obstructs) the execution of an important task shall be punishable with imprisonment (which involves compulsory prison labour, under the legislation on the execution of prison sentences). The Government indicates that section 159(1) is applicable only in serious cases of violation of a public officer’s obligations, such as foiling or substantial obstruction of a significant task related to the officer’s authoritative and decision-making power. The Committee has also noted the information on the application of section 159(1) in practice, including the information on the number of sentences of imprisonment pronounced in 2003–05 and extracts of two court decisions imposing sentences of imprisonment for acts which may amount to abuse of authority by police officers.

While having duly noted this information, the Committee observes that section 159(1) of the Penal Code is worded in very general terms, broad enough to be likely to fall within the scope of the Convention. The Committee refers in this connection to the explanations contained in paragraphs 175–178 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, in which it considered that sanctions involving compulsory labour for breaches of labour discipline (including neglect of duty by public employees) may be compatible with the Convention only if such breaches impair or are liable to endanger the operation of essential services or which are committed either in the exercise of functions that are essential to safety or in circumstances where life or health are in danger. On the other hand, it may be recalled that, in so far as the labour discipline is concerned, it is always possible, without contravening the Convention, to have recourse to other disciplinary penalties, which do not include compulsory labour.

The Committee therefore reiterates its hope that measures will be taken, on the occasion of the future revision of the Penal Code, to amend section 159(1) so as to restrict its application to essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services, the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) or, more generally, to circumstances where the life or health of persons are in danger. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide the information on the application of the above provision in practice, including copies of the relevant court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee has noted the Government’s reply to its earlier comments. It has noted with interest Government Decree No. 500/2000, which repealed Government Decree No. 284/1992 concerning measures of economic mobilization, communicated by the Government with its report. The Committee has also noted the Government’s clarifications concerning section 97(1) of the Penal Code, including the information on its application in practice.

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Disciplinary measures involving compulsory labour applicable to public officials. Referring to its earlier comments on the subject, the Committee has noted the Government’s indications concerning the definition of a "public official" (section 89(9) of the Penal Code) and the application of section 158(1) of the Penal Code. However, as regards section 159(1) of the Penal Code, according to which a public official who by negligence thwarts or makes substantially more difficult the execution of an important task shall be punishable with imprisonment (which involves compulsory prison labour), the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the explanations contained in paragraphs 110-116 of its General Survey of 1979 on the abolition of forced labour, in which it considered that sanctions involving compulsory labour for breaches of labour discipline may be compatible with the Convention only if such breaches impair or are liable to endanger the operation of essential services or which are committed either in the exercise of functions that are essential to safety or in circumstances where life or health are in danger. The Committee therefore hopes that measures will be taken, on the occasion of the future revision of the Penal Code, to amend section 159 so as to restrict its application to essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) or, more generally, to circumstances where the life or health of persons are in danger. Pending the revision, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of the above provision in practice, including copies of court decisions defining or illustrating its scope.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

1. The Committee has noted the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments, including a number of legislative texts supplied by the Government. It has noted with interest the Government’s indication in the report that Government Decree No. 284 of 1992, concerning measures of economic mobilization to increase defensive capacity in times of threat or in normal conditions, to which the Committee referred in its previous direct request, was repealed by Government Decree No. 500/2000, which entered into force on 31 December 2000. The Committee would appreciate it if the Government would supply a copy of the repealing Decree with its next report.

2. The Committee has also noted the Government’s reply to the observations made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) in October 2001, which it has been examining in its comments made under Convention No. 29, likewise ratified by the Czech Republic.

3. The Committee has noted the provisions of sections 158(1)(c) and 159(1) of the Criminal Code, according to which a public official who fails to fulfil a duty pursuant to his office or whose negligence thwarts or makes substantially difficult the execution of an important task shall be punishable with imprisonment (which involves an obligation to perform prison labour pursuant to section 29(1) of the Imprisonment Act No. 169/1999 SB of 30 June 1999). The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, the information on the application of the above provisions in practice, including copies of court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to assess their conformity with Article 1(c) of the Convention.

4. The Committee has noted a provision of section 97(1) of the Criminal Code, which makes punishable with imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) any act (such as abuse of employment, profession, position or office, etc.) causing a breakdown in the work of a state organ or economic organization or other institution. The Committee would appreciate it if the Government would provide information on the application of this provision in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions defining or illustrating its scope, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain whether this provision is not applicable in the situations covered by Article 1(d).

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

1. The Committee notes a communication received in October 2001 from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), which contains observations concerning the application of the Convention by the Czech Republic. It notes that this communication was forwarded to the Government in November 2001 for any comments it might wish to make on the matters raised therein. It hopes that the Government’s comments will be supplied in its next report, so as to enable the Committee to examine them at its next session.

2. The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

1. The Committee has noted with interest the information provided by the Government in its first reports on the application of the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would supply, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force in the following fields: updated and consolidated text of the Criminal Code; the laws governing the press and assemblies, meetings and demonstrations; the law governing political parties; the law governing the civil service; and any provisions governing labour discipline in merchant shipping. With reference to its 1998 direct request under Convention No. 87, the Committee requests the Government, in the light of the elaboration of new legislation concerning strikes, to supply information on any provisions restricting the right to strike and which may be enforced with sanctions involving an obligation to work.

2. The Committee has noted Government Decree No. 284 of 1992 concerning measures of economic mobilization which shall be applied to meet the needs of the armed forces and the population in order to increase the State’s defensive capacity and also in various other situations of crisis (such as natural calamity, ecological catastrophe, etc.). It has noted that "economic mobilization subjects" (which may include corporate and natural persons) shall set up defence units and shall propose a certain number of workers and officials for such units (sections 1(2) and 8(1) and (2)). According to section 4(2) of the Decree, construction projects in respect of the mobilization infrastructure may be used not only in the eventual situation of expected threat, but also in normal conditions. The Committee asks the Government to indicate, in its next report, on what terms workers and officials proposed for such units may be called upon to work there, and to supply copies of any provisions governing this matter, including copies of any rules or regulations made under the provisions of Decree No. 284, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain the observance of Article 1(b) of the Convention. Please also provide information on the application of the abovementioned Decree in practice.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

1. The Committee has noted with interest the information provided by the Government in its first reports on the application of the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would supply, with its next report, copies of the legislation in force in the following fields: updated and consolidated text of the Criminal Code; the laws governing the press and assemblies, meetings and demonstrations; the law governing political parties; the law governing the civil service; and any provisions governing labour discipline in merchant shipping. With reference to its 1998 direct request under Convention No. 87, the Committee requests the Government, in the light of the elaboration of new legislation concerning strikes, to supply information on any provisions restricting the right to strike and which may be enforced with sanctions involving an obligation to work.

2. The Committee has noted Government Decree No. 284 of 1992 concerning measures of economic mobilization which shall be applied to meet the needs of the armed forces and the population in order to increase the State's defensive capacity and also in various other situations of crisis (such as natural calamity, ecological catastrophe, etc.). It has noted that "economic mobilization subjects" (which may include corporate and natural persons) shall set up defence units and shall propose a certain number of workers and officials for such units (sections 1(2) and 8(1) and (2)). According to section 4(2) of the Decree, construction projects in respect of the mobilization infrastructure may be used not only in the eventual situation of expected threat, but also in normal conditions. The Committee asks the Government to indicate, in its next report, on what terms workers and officials proposed for such units may be called upon to work there, and to supply copies of any provisions governing this matter, including copies of any rules or regulations made under the provisions of Decree No. 284, so as to enable the Committee to ascertain the observance of Article 1(b) of the Convention. Please also provide information on the application of the abovementioned Decree in practice.