Texts of pending comments

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.

Repetition
In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of ratified Conventions on labour inspection, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 81 (labour inspection) and 129 (labour inspection in agriculture) together.
Article 3(1) of Convention No. 81 and Article 6(1) of Convention No. 129. Functions of labour inspectors in the area of freedom of association. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report, in reply to its previous request, that following legislative changes to the Labour Inspection Act LXXV of 1996, the labour inspectorate no longer has any competence in the area of freedom of association. The Committee refers in this respect to its comments under the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), concerning the powers of the Equal Treatment Authority in the area of anti-union discrimination and the request made by the Committee concerning effective enforcement procedures in relation to acts of interference. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the existing enforcement mechanisms in relation to freedom of association, and the agencies responsible in this area. The Committee also requests the Government to provide statistical information on relevant enforcement activities in practice, including, where applicable, information on the number of inspections, complaints made, subjects covered, and penalties imposed.
Articles 4 and 11 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 7 and 15 of Convention No. 129. Organization of the labour inspection services and allocation of sufficient budgetary resources for their effective functioning. The Committee previously noted the reorganization of the labour inspection services under the Ministry for National Economy, including the integration of the labour inspection and occupational safety and health (OSH) units within the metropolitan and district administrative authorities (appointed as regional labour authorities). It notes the Government’s indication that while these units report to, and receive professional guidance from, the Employment Supervision Department and the OSH Department of the Ministry for National Economy, acting as the central labour authority, they receive their material resources (including office space and transport facilities) from the metropolitan and district administrative authorities. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the required budget for the metropolitan and district administrative authorities is provided annually, but without specifications concerning its allocation. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on how it is ensured that sufficient budgetary resources are allocated for labour inspection units as a result of their integration into the metropolitan and district administrative authorities.
Article 5(a) of Convention No. 81 and Article 12 of Convention No. 129. Effective cooperation between the labour inspection services and the justice system. The Committee welcomes the information provided by the Government, in response to its previous request, on the cooperation between the labour inspection services and the judicial authorities, including the publication of judicial decisions on the website of the courts, and the presentation of instructive legal cases on the intranet of the OSH authority.
Articles 17 and 18 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 22, 23 and 24 of Convention No. 129. System for the enforcement of administrative penalties. The Committee notes the Government’s indications, in response to the Committee’s request, concerning the enforcement procedure for administrative penalties in relation to labour law violations. The Committee notes the observations made by the workers’ representatives of the Tripartite National ILO Council that the level of penalties and fines which may be applied by the public authorities is insufficient. In this context, the Committee also notes the Government’s indication that pursuant to section 6/A(2) of the Labour Inspection Act, a fine shall not be imposed if the employer pays outstanding wages within the deadline set by the labour inspectorate. In its 2017 General Survey concerning certain occupational safety and health instruments, paragraph 471, the Committee recalled that it is essential for the credibility and effectiveness of regulatory systems that penalties are sufficiently dissuasive and that they are defined in the national legislation in proportion to the nature and gravity of the offence. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how it is ensured that penalties for labour law violations, including in the area of the payment of wages, are sufficiently dissuasive, and are effectively enforced.
Articles 20 and 21 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 26 and 27 of Convention No. 129. Annual reports on the activities of the labour inspection services. The Committee notes that while no annual labour inspection reports were submitted, the Government has provided statistical information in its reports under Conventions Nos 81 and 129 on the subjects listed in Article 21(a),(b),(d),(e) and (f) of Convention No. 81 and Article 27(a),(b),(d),(e) and (f) of Convention No. 129. Noting that labour inspection reports have not been received since 2009, the Committee once again requests the Government to regularly publish and communicate to the ILO annual reports on the work of the labour inspection services, in accordance with Article 20 of Convention No. 81 and Article 26 of Convention No. 129, which include information on all the items under Article 21 of Convention No. 81 and Article 27 of Convention No. 129.
Issues specifically concerning labour inspection in agriculture
Article 9 of Convention No. 129. Capacities of labour inspectors to carry out effective inspections in the agricultural sector. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in reply to the Committee’s request, that no specific training on labour matters in the agricultural sector were provided to labour inspectors, as the national labour inspection system covers all economic sectors. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on whether the general training provided to labour inspectors also touches upon issues that are particularly relevant to agriculture, such as the handling of chemicals and pesticides, agricultural machinery, the lifting of heavy weights, etc.

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments.

Repetition

The Committee notes the observations received on 1 September 2017 from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), which are reflected in the present observation. It also notes the observations of the workers’ group of the National ILO Council at its meeting of 11 September 2017, included in the Government’s report, which relate to issues under examination by the Committee and contain allegations that Act XLII of 2015 resulted in trade unions formerly established in the area of civilian national security not being able to operate properly. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Freedom of expression. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted with concern that sections 8 and 9 of the 2012 Labour Code prohibit workers from engaging in any conduct, including the exercise of their right to express an opinion – whether during or outside working time – that may jeopardize the employer’s reputation or legitimate economic and organizational interests, and explicitly provide for the possibility to restrict workers’ personal rights in this regard. The Committee had requested the Government to provide detailed information on the results of the “For Employment” project, under which an assessment of the impact of the Labour Code on employers and workers had been undertaken, as well as on the outcome of the consultations on the modification of the Labour Code within the framework of the Permanent Consultation Forum of the Market Sector and the Government (VKF). The Committee had expressed the hope that the review of the Labour Code would fully take into account its comments with respect to the need to take any necessary measures to ensure respect for freedom of expression. The Committee notes that the Government confines itself to indicating that the negotiations in question have not been closed yet. The Committee regrets that no information has been provided by the Government on the outcome of the “For Employment” project (completed in August 2015) or on the consultations undertaken since 2015 within the framework of the VKF with a view to elaborating consensus-based proposals for the review of the Labour Code. The Committee highlights once again the need to take all necessary, including legislative, measures to guarantee that sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code do not impede the freedom of expression of workers and the exercise of the mandate of trade unions and their leaders to defend the occupational interests of their members, and expects that its comments will be fully taken into account in the framework of the ongoing review of the Labour Code. It requests the Government to provide information on any progress achieved in this respect.

Article 2 of the Convention. Registration of trade unions. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the allegation of the workers’ group of the National ILO Council that numerous rules in the new Civil Code concerning the establishment of trade unions (for example, on trade union headquarters and the verification of its legal usage) obstructed their registration in practice. The Committee had requested the Government to: (i) assess without delay, in consultation with the social partners, the need to simplify the registration requirements, including those relating to union headquarters, as well as the ensuing obligation to bring the trade union by-laws into line with the Civil Code on or before 15 March 2016; and (ii) take the necessary steps to effectively address the difficulties signalled with respect to registration in practice, so as not to hinder the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing. The Committee had also requested the Government to provide information on the number of registered organizations and the number of organizations denied or delayed registration (including the grounds for refusal or modification) during the reporting period.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Act CLXXIX of 2016 on the amendment and acceleration of proceedings regarding the registration of civil society organizations and companies, which entered into force on 1 January 2017, amended the 2011 Association Act, the 2013 Civil Code and the 2011 Civil Organization Registration Act. The legislative amendments were adopted to: (i) simplify the contents of association statutes; (ii) rationalize the court registration and change registration procedures of civil society organizations (court examination limited to compliance with essential legal requirements on number of founders, representative bodies, operation, mandatory content of statutes, legal association objectives, etc.; notices to supply missing information no longer issued on account of minor errors); and (iii) accelerate the registration by courts of civil society organizations (termination of the public prosecutor’s power to control the legality of civil society organizations; maximum time limit for registration). The Committee notes, however, that the ITUC reiterates that trade union registration regulated by the Civil Organization Registration Act is still being subjected to very strict requirements and numerous rules that operate in practice as a means to obstruct the registration of new trade unions, including the stringent requirements on trade union headquarters (unions need to prove that they have the right to use the property), and alleges that in many cases judges refused to register a union because of minor flaws in the application form and forced unions to include the enterprise name in their official names. The Committee further notes that the workers’ group of the National ILO Council states that, when the new Civil Code entered into force, all trade unions had to modify their statutes to be consistent with the law and at the same time report the changes to the courts, and reiterates that these regulations pose a serious administrative burden on trade unions.

The Committee observes the persisting divergence between the statements of the Government and the workers’ organizations. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on the observations of the ITUC and the workers’ group of the National ILO Council concerning in particular the stringent requirements in relation to union headquarters, the alleged refusal of registration due to minor flaws, the alleged imposition of including the company name in the official name of associations, and the alleged difficulties created or encountered by trade unions because of the obligation to bring their by-laws into line with the Civil Code. The Committee recalls that, although the formalities of registration allow for official recognition of workers’ or employers’ organizations, these formalities should not become an obstacle to the exercise of legitimate trade union activities nor allow for undue discretionary power to deny or delay the establishment of such organizations. Accordingly, the Committee requests the Government to: (i) engage without delay in consultations with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations to assess the need to further simplify the registration requirements, including those relating to union headquarters; and (ii) take the necessary measures to effectively address the alleged obstacles to registration in practice, so as not to impede the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing. In the absence of the solicited information, the Committee also requests the Government once again to provide information on the number of registered organizations and the number of organizations denied or delayed registration (including the grounds for refusal or modification) during the reporting period.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration. The Committee notes that the ITUC alleges that trade union activity is severely restricted by the power of national prosecutors to control trade union activities, for instance by reviewing general and ad hoc decisions of unions, conducting inspections directly or through other state bodies, and enjoying free and unlimited access to trade union offices; and further alleges that, in the exercise of these broad capacities, prosecutors questioned several times the lawfulness of trade union operations, requested numerous documents (registration forms, membership records with original membership application forms, minutes of meetings, resolutions, etc.) and, if not satisfied with the unions’ financial reporting, ordered additional reports, thereby overstepping the powers provided by the law. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, while public prosecutors no longer have the right to control the legality of the establishment of the civil society organizations, they retain the power to control the legality of their operation. The Committee generally recalls that acts as described by the ITUC would be incompatible with the right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments with respect to the specific ITUC allegations above.

Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities. The Committee had previously noted that: (i) the Strike Act, as amended, states that the degree and condition of the minimum level of service may be established by law, and that, in the absence of such regulation, they shall be agreed upon by the parties during the pre-strike negotiations or, failing such agreement, they shall be determined by final decision of the court; and (ii) excessive minimum levels of service are fixed for passenger transportation public services by Act XLI of 2012 (Passenger Transport Services Act), both at the local and suburban levels (66 per cent) and at national and regional levels (50 per cent); as well as with regard to postal services by Act CLIX of 2012 (Postal Services Act), for the collection and delivery of official documents and other mail. The Committee trusted, in view of the consultations undertaken on the modification of the Strike Act, that due account would be taken of its comments during the legislative review.

The Committee notes that the Government refers again to the relevant provisions of the Strike Act (section 4(2) and (3)) and to the Passenger Transport Services Act and Postal Services Act. In the Government’s view, by regulating the extent of sufficient services in respect of two basic services that substantially affect the public and thus creating a pre-clarified situation, the legislature promoted legal certainty in the context of the exercise of the right to strike. The level of sufficient services was determined seeking to resolve the potential tension between the exercisability of the right to strike and the fulfilment of the State’s responsibilities to satisfy public needs. The Government further indicates that negotiations on the amendment of the Strike Act took place in the framework of the VKF throughout 2015 and 2016, in the course of which the trade unions considered that the extent of sufficient services in the passenger transport sector was excessive. The employees’ and employers’ sides managed to agree on a few aspects of the amendment of the Strike Act, but failed to reach an agreement regarding, inter alia, which institution should be authorized to determine the extent of sufficient services in the absence of a legal provision or agreement. Stressing the importance of a compromise of the social partners on the amendment proposals of the Strike Act, the Government adds that, since the trade unions had announced proposals at the end of 2016 but had not submitted them during the first half of the year, no further discussions have taken place in 2017. The Committee further notes that the workers’ group of the National ILO Council reiterates that the strike legislation contains an obligation to provide sufficient service during strike action which in some sectors virtually precludes the exercise of the right to strike (for example by requiring 66 per cent of the service to be provided during the strike and ensuring the feasibility of this rate through extremely complicated rules).

The Committee recalls that, since the establishment of a minimum service restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests, workers’ organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in establishing the minimum service, together with employers and public authorities; and emphasizes the importance of adopting explicit legislative provisions on the participation of the organizations concerned in the definition of minimum services. Moreover, any disagreement on such services should be resolved by a joint or independent body responsible for examining rapidly and without formalities the difficulties raised by the definition and application of such a minimum service, and empowered to issue enforceable decisions. The Committee further recalls that the minimum service must genuinely and exclusively be a minimum service, that is one which is limited to the operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population or the minimum requirements of the service, while maintaining the effectiveness of the pressure brought to bear; and that, in the past, it has considered that a requirement of 50 per cent of the volume of transportation may considerably restrict the right of transport workers to take industrial action. The Committee therefore once again highlights the need to amend the relevant laws (including the Strike Act, the Passenger Transport Services Act and the Postal Services Act) in order to ensure that the workers’ organizations concerned may participate in the definition of a minimum service and that, where no agreement is possible, the matter is referred to a joint or independent body. The Committee expects that the consultations on the modification of the Strike Act undertaken within the framework of the VKF will continue. It requests the Government to provide up-to-date information on the status or results of the negotiations with particular regard to the manner of determining minimum services and the levels imposed in the postal and passenger transport sectors, and expects that the Committee’s comments will be duly taken into consideration during the legislative review.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

The Committee notes the observations of the Forum for the Co-operation of Trade Unions and its affiliate, the Public Collection and Public Culture Worker’s Union, received on 3 May 2021, alleging that a legislative process concerning the status of cultural workers would not take into consideration the provisions of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard.

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments.

The Committee notes the observations received on 1 September 2015 and 1 September 2017 from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), alleging acts of anti-union dismissals, union busting and intimidation in several enterprises, and criticizing in particular the excessive limitation of the scope of collective bargaining and the employers’ power to unilaterally modify the scope and content of collective agreements. The Committee also notes the observations of the workers’ group of the National ILO Council at its meeting of 11 September 2017, included in the Government’s report, which denounce that: (i) the law does not allow trade unions with less than 10 per cent representation among the workers to negotiate collective agreements, not even with respect to their own members; (ii) the law restricts the ‘coalition’ freedoms of trade unions for entitlement to collective bargaining so that they cannot seek to collectively attain the 10 per cent threshold; and (iii) in those cases where no trade union represents the required percentage, the workers’ council is entitled to enter into a collective bargaining agreement (except on wage issues). The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments with respect to the observations of the ITUC and the workers’ group of the National ILO Council, including to clarify whether the representativity threshold applies to collective agreements at both enterprise and industry levels.

The Committee further notes several judgments of the Supreme Court of Hungary (Curia) supplied by the Government, which have a bearing on the Convention, in particular on the promotion of collective bargaining.

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indications that: (i) section 82 of the Labour Code provides compensation not exceeding the worker’s 12-month absence pay in case of unlawful dismissal of trade union officials or members; (ii) reinstatement is granted in case of dismissals violating the principle of equal treatment (section 83(1)(a)) or dismissals violating the requirement for prior consent of the union’s higher body before the termination of a union official (section 83(1)(c)); and (iii) while the Labour Code does not contain penalties for acts of anti-union discrimination against union officials and affiliates, the Equal Treatment Authority (ETA) may, in such cases, levy fines. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that Bill No. T/17998 on the amendment of legislation related to the entry into force of the Act on the General Administrative Order, which will also bring about the harmonization of the Labour Code and relevant ILO Conventions, contains inter alia a provision amending the definition of worker representatives (section 294(1)(e) of the Labour Code), the purpose of which is to ensure that, in the event of unlawful termination of a worker representative, the possibility of requesting reinstatement into the original job will also be awarded to union officers, not only to elected representatives as is currently the case under section 83(1)(d). The Committee expects that the Government will take the necessary steps to ensure that union officials, union members and elected representatives enjoy effective protection against any act prejudicial to them, including dismissal, based on their status or activities, and requests the Government to provide information on developments in relation to the adoption of new legislative provisions in this regard. In the absence of the information solicited from the Government with respect to the working of the ETA, the Committee requests the Government once again: (i) to indicate whether, given that section 16(1)(a) of the Equal Treatment Act stipulates that the ETA may order the elimination of the situation constituting a violation of law, the ETA may order on that basis reinstatement in case of anti-union dismissals of trade union officials and members; (ii) to provide information as to whether the ETA may order compensation on the basis of section 82 of the Labour Code; and (iii) to provide information on the average duration of the proceedings before the ETA related to anti-union discrimination (including of any subsequent appeal procedures before the courts), as well as on the average duration of purely judicial proceedings.

Article 2. Adequate protection against acts of interference. In its previous comments, the Committee, while noting the Government’s indication that the Constitution and the current national legislation were sufficient to prevent acts of interference, had requested the Government to take steps to adopt specific legislative provisions prohibiting acts of interference. Noting that the Government provides no information in this respect, the Committee recalls that it considers that the provisions of the Labour Code and the Equal Treatment Act do not specifically cover acts of interference designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, or to place workers’ organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations through financial or other means. The Committee requests the Government once again to take all necessary measures to adopt specific legislative provisions prohibiting such acts of interference on the part of the employer and making express provision for rapid appeal procedures, coupled with effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.

Article 4. Collective bargaining in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of collective agreements signed, the sectors concerned and the share of the workforce covered by collective agreements.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments.

Repetition

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of ratified Conventions on labour inspection, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 81 (labour inspection) and 129 (labour inspection in agriculture) together.

Article 3(1) and (2) of Convention No. 81 and Article 6(1) and (3) of Convention No. 129. Additional functions entrusted to labour inspectors. The Committee previously noted that combating illegal employment was a priority for labour inspection, and that the labour inspection services were regularly associated in joint inspections to eradicate illegal migration, among others, in cooperation with the police and the custom authorities. In this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s reference to the Labour Inspection Act, which entrusts labour inspectors, among other things, with the control of the work and residence permits of foreign workers, and the notification to the immigration police of any decision concerning the infringement of the provisions on the employment of foreign workers (sections 3(1)(i) and 7/A(7) of the Labour Inspection Act).

The Committee once again notes that the Government has not provided the information requested on the role of labour inspectors in granting foreign workers in an irregular situation their due rights resulting from their employment relationship. The Committee recalls that, pursuant to Article 3(1) and (2) of Convention No. 81 and Article 6 of Convention No. 129, the functions of the system of labour inspection shall be to secure the enforcement of the legal provisions relating to conditions of work and the protection of workers while engaged in their work, and any further duties which may be entrusted to labour inspectors shall not be such as to interfere with the effective discharge of their primary duties. In this respect it stated in its 2006 General Survey, Labour inspection, paragraph 78, that any function of verifying the legality of employment should have as its corollary the reinstatement of the statutory rights of all the workers if it is to be compatible with the objective of labour inspection, which is to protect the rights and interests of all workers and to improve their working conditions. In this respect, the Committee also recalls that in its 2017 General Survey on certain occupational safety and health instruments, it indicated that workers in a vulnerable situation may not be willing to cooperate with the labour inspection services if they fear negative consequences as a result of inspection activities, such as the loss of their job or expulsion from the country (paragraph 452) or that their complaint will not be kept confidential. The Committee requests the Government to take measures to ensure that the functions assigned to labour inspectors do not interfere with the main objective of labour inspectors to ensure the protection of workers in accordance with labour inspectors’ primary duties as provided for in Article 3(2) of Convention No. 81 and Article 6(3) of Convention No. 129. It also once again requests the Government to indicate the manner in which the labour inspectorate discharges its primary duties in ensuring the enforcement of employers’ obligations with regard to any statutory rights workers may have in an irregular situation for the period of their effective employment relationship. It urges the Government to provide information on the number of cases in which workers found to be in an irregular situation have been granted their due rights, such as the payment of outstanding wages or social security benefits. In addition, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which it ensures that labour inspectors treat as absolutely confidential the source of any complaint bringing to their notice a defect or breach of legal provisions.

Articles 10 and 16 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 15 and 21 of Convention No. 129. Number of labour inspectors and effectiveness of the labour inspection system. The Committee previously noted a significant decrease in the number of labour inspectors from 696 to 401 between 2008 and 2013. In this respect, the Committee noted that the comments of the workers’ representatives of the Tripartite National ILO Council (included in the Government’s reports) had indicated that this decrease had compromised the efficiency of inspections as shown by the increase in the number of industrial accidents and violations detected in recent years. On the other hand, the Committee noted the Government’s reply to these comments indicating that the increased number of violations detected was in fact a result of the enhanced efficiency of inspections due to the establishment of labour inspection priorities which were determined by annual labour inspection plans (focused on high risk sectors).

The Committee notes with concern from the statistics provided in the Government’s report that the number of labour inspectors continued to decrease to 393 labour inspectors (as of May 2017), and that the number of occupational accidents increased between 2010 and 2016 from 19,948 per year to 23,027. The Committee recalls from its 2017 General Survey on certain occupational safety and health instruments, paragraph 441, that focusing inspections on the most hazardous workplaces must not diminish the overall resource commitment of the labour inspectorate. Noting the significant decline in the number of inspectors since 2008, as well as the increase in the number of occupational accidents reported, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the number of labour inspections are adequate to ensure the effective protection of workers. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistical information on the number of labour inspectors, inspection visits, violations detected and penalties imposed. It also requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of occupational accidents, and to provide an explanation for their increased number in recent years.

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

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.

Repetition

Article 5 of the Convention. Effective tripartite consultations. In reply to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government indicates that two tripartite seminars were held during the reporting period: a seminar entitled “Lawful and safe employment” in 2016, and a seminar on “The future of work: how do the challenges posed by digitalisation transform the world of work; the ILO standard relating to freedom of association” in 2018. The Committee nevertheless notes that the Government does not provide information regarding tripartite consultations held on the matters related to international labour standards set out in Article 5(1) of the Convention. The Committee therefore reiterates its request that the Government provide detailed information on the content and outcome of tripartite consultations held on all matters concerning international labour standards covered by the Convention, including with respect to: the Government’s replies to questionnaires concerning items on the agenda of the International Labour Conference (Article 5(1)(a)); the proposals to be made to the competent authorities upon the submission of instruments adopted by the Conference (Article 5(1)(b)); the re-examination at appropriate intervals of unratified Conventions and Recommendations to which effect has not yet been given (Article 5(1)(c)); reports to be made on the application of ratified Conventions (Article 5(1)(d)); and proposals for the denunciation of ratified Conventions (Article 5(1)(e)).

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that the next report will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous comments.

Repetition

The Committee notes the observations of the workers’ side of the National ILO Council at its meeting of 3 September 2014 included in the Government's report, as well as the Government’s comments thereon.

Article 5 of the Convention. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee notes that, according to the workers’ side of the National ILO Council, in case of publicly owned employers, the scope of issues that may be regulated by collective agreement is restricted by law. It also notes the Government's indication that the purpose of the limitation introduced for publicly owned employers in respect of entering into a collective agreement is to promote efficient management of assets in public ownership, fulfilment of public functions, prevention of concluding abusive agreements and the protection of public interest; and that parties must therefore observe the peremptory provisions of the Labour Code while regulating working conditions by means of collective agreement. The Committee requests the Government to indicate which subject matters are excluded from the scope of collective bargaining in case of publicly owned employers, specifying the relevant legislative provisions so as to enable the Committee to assess their conformity with the Convention.

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report and the supplementary information provided in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020).

The Committee notes, from the supplementary information provided, that the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic became apparent between February and April 2020, as women’s employment rates fell from 62.5 per cent to 61.4 per cent. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the employment rates of both men and women. It also asks the Government to take measures to ensure that women are not disproportionately affected in terms of access to employment and occupation in comparison with men.

Article 1 of the Convention. Equal remuneration for work of equal value. Legislation. The Committee refers to its previous comments in which it noted that, despite a reference to “the equal value of work” in the Labour Code (section 12(3)), the provision does not explicitly provide for an obligation to pay men and women equal remuneration for work of equal value and refers only to the principle of equal treatment in remuneration generally. The Committee notes with regret the Government’s statement in its report that the definition of equal remuneration in section 12(3) of the Labour Code remains unchanged. The Committee recalls that the concept of work of equal value lies at the heart of the fundamental right of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value and the promotion of equality, as it permits a broad scope of comparison including, but going beyond equal remuneration for “equal”, “the same” or “similar” work, and also encompasses work that is of an entirely different nature, but which is nevertheless of equal value (2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraphs 672-679). The Committee asks the Government to amend the Labour Code with a view to giving full expression to the concept of work of equal value in order to provide not only for equal remuneration for equal, the same or similar work, but also to address situations in which men and women perform different work which is nevertheless of equal value.

Articles 1 and 2. Gender pay gap. In its previous comment, the Committee asked the Government to continue providing information on the specific measures addressing the underlying causes of the gender pay gap, as well as statistical information on the distribution of men and women in the various sectors and occupations and their corresponding earnings in the private and public sectors. The Committee notes from the statistics supplied by the Government that women’s earnings amounted to 85.1 per cent of the monthly average earnings of men in 2018, a slight increase from the 2015 figure of 84.2 per cent (with the wage gap falling from 15.8 per cent in 2015 to 14.9 per cent in 2018). It takes notes that the gender pay gap is narrower among young adults (a gap of 9 per cent) and tends to increase from the age of 30, a difference which can probably be explained by women taking time off work due to pregnancy and childcare. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the gender pay gap is higher in the public sector than in the private sector: in the public sector, women earn 81 per cent of men’s earnings, while in the private sector, they earn 85 per cent of men’s earnings. The gap is even higher in managerial positions: women managers in the public sector earn 75 per cent of the earnings of men managers, and 80 per cent in the private sector. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it currently has no intention of amending the legislation in relation to wage policy. The Committee also notes, from the Government’s report on the application of the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122), the various measures taken to assist women in returning to work after having children and helping them balance work and family responsibilities, such as the “Child Care Allowance Extra” package, allowing parents with infants to work, in addition to receiving benefits and the establishment of Family and Career Centres, which assist women through the provision of training and mentoring services. In its supplementary information, the Government indicates that a new “Women’s empowerment in the family and society” Action Plan (2021-30) is under consultation. The Action Plan outlines measures to address the gender pay gap. The Committee asks the Government to ensure that the “Women’s empowerment in the family and society” Action Plan (2021-30) contains specific measures to address the underlying causes of the gender pay gap, including occupational gender segregation. It asks the Government to provide information on the status of implementation of the Action Plan, as well as on the impact of the measures taken. The Committee also asks the Government to continue providing updated statistical information on the distribution of men and women and their corresponding earnings in the various sectors and occupations, in the private and public sectors.

Article 2. Minimum wages. The Committee notes from the information provided by the Government that the gross monthly minimum wage increased by 102 per cent between 2010 and 2019, to reach 149,000 Hungarian forint (HUF) in January 2019. In its supplementary information, the Government indicates that in January 2020 the gross minimum wage was increased to HUF161,000. The Committee notes with interest the significant wage increases in recent years in sectors employing a large proportion of women, such as public education, healthcare and social institutions. As examples, the Government provides details on the increase of the minimum wage in the social sector (from HUF138,000 in 2018 to HUF149,000 in 2019), and for professionals working in day-care facilities (with an average monthly wage of HUF202,000). The Committee notes the Government’s statement that these wage increases were targeted in many instances at women. In 2017, 2018 and 2019, wages were also increased in law enforcement, defence, county government offices, the judicial system, municipalities, education, culture, healthcare and the social sector. The Committee asks the Government to continue providing information on minimum wages in the public and private sectors. Noting the Government’s indication that job classifications and salary systems in the public sector continue to be under review, the Committee again asks the Government to provide precise information on how it is ensured that, in redefining the minimum wages for the jobs concerned, rates are fixed on the basis of objective criteria, free from gender bias, and that female-dominated occupations are not undervalued in comparison with those predominantly undertaken by men.

Collective agreements. In reply to its previous comment, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that it did not implement any measures concerning the private sector, having regard to the fact that the State does not wish to intervene in the private law relations of the parties and that it considers that it is the social partners’ responsibility to promote the removal of unjustified wage differences. While taking due note of the Government’s position, the Committee again encourages the Government to work with the social partners, including for example through promotional or training activities, to ensure that the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value is included in collective agreements, and to consider explicitly including the principle of the Convention in the collective agreements concluded in the public (institutional) sector, and to provide information on the steps taken in this regard.

Article 3. Determination of work of equal value. Objective job evaluation. Private and public sectors. The Committee refers to its previous comment in which it recalled that the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value requires the use of appropriate techniques for objective job evaluation to determine and compare the relative value of work, using criteria that are free from gender bias (2012 General Survey, paragraphs 675 and 701). In this regard, it notes that the creation of a wage transparency tool is still under consultation and is being examined by the Standing Consultation Forum of the Competitive Sector. In view of the above, the Committee asks the Government to ensure that the development of this tool is based on objective criteria that are free from gender bias and, in particular, that the selection of factors for comparison, the weighting of such factors and the actual comparison carried out are not discriminatory, either directly or indirectly. The Government is requested to provide information on any measures adopted to this end.

Article 4. Cooperation with the social partners. The Committee recalls that the Permanent Consultation Forum (PCF), a tripartite consultative review and proposal-making forum on economic and labour issues, started discussions in April 2016 about the transposition of European Commission Recommendation 2014/124/EU on strengthening the principle of equal pay between men and women through transparency. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the social partners have not yet reached agreement on the subject. The Committee asks the Government to continue providing information on any progress made by the PCF concerning the application of the principle of the Convention. It also once again asks the Government to provide information on any other initiatives undertaken in collaboration with the social partners, including awareness-raising campaigns, with a view to advancing the application of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value.

Enforcement. The Committee notes, from the Government’s supplementary information, that one case regarding the principle of the Convention has been heard by the courts since the provision of the previous report and that it was dismissed. It recalls that the low number of complaints regarding violations of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value does not necessarily indicate that this form of discrimination does not exist. It is more likely to reflect the lack of an appropriate legal framework, the lack of awareness, understanding and recognition of the principle of the Convention among government officials, and workers and employers and their organizations, as well as the lack of access to or the inadequacy of complaints mechanisms and means of redress, or fear of reprisals. Noting that, during the reporting period, the Equal Treatment Authority (ETA) and the courts have found no cases of violations of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value, the Committee asks the Government to take measures to raise awareness of the relevant legislation and to enhance the capacity of the relevant authorities, including judges, the ETA and labour inspectors, to identify and address cases of discrimination and pay inequality. It also asks the Government to examine whether the applicable substantive and procedural provisions allow claims to be brought successfully in practice. The Committee also asks the Government to continue providing information on the activities of the ETA, including the number of cases related to the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value and their outcomes, as well as any cases relevant to the application of the Convention examined by the courts, including the sanctions imposed and remedies granted.

Article 1 of the Convention. Discrimination in employment and occupation. Legislation. The Committee recalls its previous comments on the Labour Code 2012, in which it noted that the Labour Code, although providing for the principle of equal treatment (section 12), does not explicitly prohibit discrimination nor does it enumerate any prohibited grounds of discrimination or refer to the prohibited grounds enumerated in the Equal Treatment Act 2003. The Committee notes with regret the Government’s indication that there have been no legislative amendments made in this regard as it considers that the current laws provide sufficient guarantees against discrimination for all employees. Recalling that the implementation of the Convention presupposes a clear and comprehensive legislative framework, as well as measures to ensure that the right to equality and non-discrimination is effective in practice, the Committee asks the Government to take measures, in collaboration with workers’ and employers’ organizations, to amend the Labour Code to include provisions defining and prohibiting direct and indirect discrimination in all aspects of employment and occupation, on at least all the grounds listed in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention.

Enforcement. Labour inspection. The Committee recalls that, following a 2012 amendment to the Labour Inspection Act of 1996, the competence of the labour inspectorate no longer covers compliance with equal treatment provisions, which is now entirely a matter for the Equal Treatment Authority (ETA). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the amendment was made because labour inspectors did not have a sufficient level of expertise to address cases of discrimination, but that they remain able to detect such cases and refer them to the competent authority. In this regard, the Committee recalls the importance of training labour inspectors to increase their capacity to prevent, detect and remedy such instances. It also recalls that labour inspectors, who have regular access to workplaces and to workers and employers, have a crucial role to play in preventing, detecting and addressing discrimination and promoting equality in employment and occupation. The Committee observes that this role is different from, but complementary to the role played by the ETA. The Committee therefore requests the Government to implement adequate training programmes to allow labour inspectors to effectively prevent, detect and remedy cases of discrimination in employment and occupation. It further requests the Government to consider reviewing the labour inspectorate’s competences with a view to extending them to cover the legislation addressing equal treatment, and to provide information in this respect. It also requests the Government to provide information on: (i) the manner in which the labour inspectorate and the Equal Treatment Authority cooperate; and (ii) the number and nature of cases of discrimination in employment and occupation referred to the ETA by the labour inspectorate, as well as the grounds of discrimination invoked, and their outcome.

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

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report and the supplementary information provided in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020).

Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention. Discrimination based on sex. The Committee refers to its previous comment in which it requested information on the practical application of Decree No. 33/1998, on mandatory pregnancy testing prescribed for work involving exposure to chemicals, as set out in Annex 8 of the Decree. The Committee notes the Government’s statement in its report that, in line with article 2 of Directive 92/85/EEC, a worker who informs her employer of her pregnancy is considered a pregnant worker; she will therefore be deemed unfit to perform the tasks set out in Annex 8 of Decree No. 33/1998 only if she has informed her employer of her condition. On the other hand, the Government’s report also indicates that the employer is to determine the jobs in which, due to the exposures as per Annex 8 of Decree No. 33/1998, no minors, women or ageing workers can be employed. The Committee recalls that provisions relating to the protection of persons working under hazardous or difficult conditions should be aimed at protecting the health and safety of both men and women at work, while taking into account gender differences with regard to specific risks to their health. Therefore, excluding all women from performing tasks set out in Annex 8 of Decree No. 33/1998 would constitute discrimination on the basis of sex. The Committee asks the Government to clarify whether Decree No. 33/1998 contains a general prohibition against employing women to perform the tasks set out in Annex 8, or whether this restriction applies only to pregnant women who have voluntarily disclosed their pregnancy to their employer and women of fertile age. The Committee also asks the Government to provide information on any judicial decisions or cases examined by the Equal Treatment Authority (ETA) on the application of the Decree.

Sexual harassment. With reference to its previous comment, the Committee takes note of the ETA’s 2017 booklet “on Preventing Workplace Harassment and on the Forms of Rights Enforcement”. It also notes the Government’s statement that the labour inspectorate only examines the conditions of employment in terms of labour law and not the internal relationships between the employer and employees or, as the case may be, between the respective employees. The Government also states that, between June 2016 and May 2019, the ETA found employers guilty of harassment in only two instances but did not indicate the number of complaints brought forward to the ETA and how many of those related to sexual harassment. The Committee recalls in this regard that the absence of complaints regarding sexual harassment does not necessarily indicate that this form of sex discrimination does not exist; rather, it is likely to reflect the lack of an appropriate legal framework, the lack of awareness, understanding and recognition of this form of sex discrimination among government officials, and workers and employers and their organizations, as well as the lack of access to or the inadequacy of complaints mechanisms and means of redress, or fear of reprisals (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 790). The Committee asks once again the Government to undertake an assessment of the effectiveness of the complaints procedures currently available, particularly in light of the very limited number of infringements identified by the ETA. The Committee also asks the Government to introduce in the Labour Code provisions defining and prohibiting sexual harassment, laying down sanctions and remedies, and determining a specific role for labour inspectors, and to provide information on any steps taken in this respect.

Article 2. Equality of opportunity and treatment for men and women. In its previous comment, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on: (1) the reasons for the discontinuation of action plans under the National Strategy for the Promotion of Gender Equality; (2) the impact of revised section 65(6) of the Labour Code and Government Regulation No. 351/2014 on the equal sharing of family responsibilities between men and women and the reconciliation of work and family obligations; (3) any measures taken to overcome gender stereotypes; and (4) any specific steps taken to address occupational gender segregation. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, between July 2018 and June 2019, the Ministry of Human Capacities announced a competition called “Be a STEM star!” (“STEM” standing for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) to encourage the participation of girls in areas where women are generally under-represented. It also notes the “TechGirls2018” event series, organized in 2018 for the second time by the German-Hungarian Chamber of Industry and Commerce, which has the objective of making studies and jobs in technology, science and information technologies (IT) more popular among girls. The Committee also takes note of the various measures taken under the “Women in the Family and Workplace” project, launched in 2016, to improve the labour market situation of women and ensure a better compatibility between work and family life. The Committee notes, from the Government’s supplementary information, that efforts were made to increase the number of nurseries in the country, even in municipalities with less than 5,000 inhabitants. As a result, the number of 4-year-old children attending nursery went from 93 per cent in 2010 to 97.7 per cent in 2019, while 99.7 per cent of 5-year-old children attended nursery. However, the Committee notes, from the 2018 concluding observations of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, that women remain under-represented in decision-making positions in the public sector, particularly in government ministries and the Parliament, and that stereotyped patriarchal attitudes still prevail with respect to the position of women in society (CCPR/C/HUN/CO/6, paragraph 23). The Committee asks the Government to continue to take specific measures aimed at overcoming gender stereotypes and to provide information on: (i) the results achieved through the “Be a STEM star!” and “TechGirls2018” projects in terms of the number of girls enrolling in STEM studies, and (ii) any other steps taken to address occupational gender segregation, including steps aimed at promoting women’s access to a wider range of jobs, and providing them with a wider choice of educational and vocational opportunities. Noting the Government does not respond in this regard, the Committee, once again, asks the Government to provide information on the application in practice of revised section 65(6) of the Labour Code and Government Regulation No. 351/2014, particularly regarding their impact on the equal sharing of family responsibilities between men and women and the reconciliation of work and family obligations, as well as to supply a copy of the new texts. Recalling the discontinuation of action plans under the National Strategy for the Promotion of Gender Equality, the Committee asks the Government to indicate the reasons for this, and to supply information on any assessment undertaken after the last action plan and any lessons learned.

Equality of opportunity and treatment irrespective of race, color and national extraction. Roma. With reference to its previous comments regarding measures to address the segregation of Roma children, the Committee notes with interest that, according to the Government’s fifth report submitted to the Advisory Committee of the Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities (ACFC) of the Council of Europe: (1) the amendment of the Public Education Act of 2011 repealed the provision that exempted faith-based schools from the requirements of the Equal Treatment Act; (2) the “Road Map” action plan was established, which aims at the success of disadvantaged students, including Roma children, and the desegregation in education; and (3) specific education programmes targeting all age groups, from kindergarten to higher education, were adopted (ACFC/SR/V(2019)005, pages 36 and 37). In its supplementary information, the Government indicates that, as from January 2019, and in order to mitigate and prevent segregation in schools, the Educational Authority initiated a series of supportive workshops within the framework of the Human Resources Development Operational Programme aimed at promoting the implementation of inclusive educational organization. The Government adds that in the 2018/2019 academic year, 36 school district centres amended district boundaries to mitigate the risk of segregation. However, the Committee takes note from the 2020 concluding observations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, of the continuing segregation of Roma children in special education, the increased gap in attainment between Roma and non-Roma children at different levels of education, and the lack of official data on Roma children in education (CRC/C/HUN/CO/6, paragraph 35). With regard to access to employment, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that in 2017, only 54.6 per cent of Roma men and 35.9 per cent of Roma women in the 15–64 age group were employed (an increase of about 10 percentage points for the latter compared to 2014). Among those employed, the proportion of public workers is particularly high among Roma: in 2017 it was 36.6 per cent (which was 41.7 per cent in 2015), in contrast with the 3.7 per cent ratio of non-Roma (which was 4.2 per cent in 2015). The Government further indicates that the average monthly number of those participating in public employment programmes was 223,469 in 2016, which decreased to 179,492 in 2017 and 135,620 in 2018. The Committee notes the “Training of Low Skilled and of Public Workers” project (GINOP/EDIOP-6.1.1), under which 86,738 people, including 29,240 Roma people, received vocational training. Finally, the Committee notes that between 2015 and early 2018, the ETA took 80 decisions regarding complaints of discrimination on the grounds of Roma origin; among those, discrimination was established in 20 cases and another 14 cases were settled (ACFC/SR/V(2019)005, page 44). The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the specific measures taken under the “Road Map” action plan and the results achieved with respect to addressing school segregation of Roma pupils and improving their equal access to education, and to identify any other specific measures adopted to this end and their impact. The Committee reiterates its request to the Government to provide information on the practical application of the measures taken under the revised National Strategy for Social Convergence with respect to access to education, employment and occupation of the Roma, and on their impact on promoting equality of opportunity and treatment for Roma people, including information on any measures aimed at combating negative stereotypes and prejudice against them. Noting the low number of convictions handed down by the ETA, the Committee once again asks the Government to take proactive measures to ensure that acts of discrimination against Roma people in employment and occupation are prevented and addressed, including by reviewing the accessibility and effectiveness of the complaint mechanisms before the ETA, and to continue to provide information on any cases dealt with by the ETA and the courts, and their outcomes.

General observation of 2018. With regard to the above issues, and in more general terms, the Committee would like to draw the Government’s attention to its general observation on discrimination based on race, colour and national extraction which was adopted in 2018. In the general observation, the Committee notes with concern that discriminatory attitudes and stereotypes based on the race, colour or national extraction of men and women workers continue to hinder their participation in education, vocational training programmes and access to a wider range of employment opportunities, resulting in persisting occupational segregation and lower remuneration received for work of equal value. Furthermore, the Committee considers that it is necessary to adopt a comprehensive and coordinated approach to tackling the obstacles and barriers faced by persons in employment and occupation because of their race, colour or national extraction, and to promote equality of opportunity and treatment for all. Such an approach should include the adoption of interlocking measures aimed at addressing gaps in education, training and skills, providing unbiased vocational guidance, recognizing and validating the qualifications obtained abroad, and valuing and recognizing traditional knowledge and skills that may be relevant both to accessing and advancing in employment and to engaging in an occupation. The Committee also recalls that, in order to be effective, these measures must include concrete steps, such as laws, policies, programmes, mechanisms and participatory processes, remedies designed to address prejudices and stereotypes and to promote mutual understanding and tolerance among all sections of the population.

The Committee draws the Government’s attention to its general observation of 2018 and requests the Government to provide information in response to the questions raised in that observation.

Article 2. Equal opportunity plans. The Committee notes that the Government’s report does not contain any information on the compliance by the private sector of the requirement to adopt equal opportunity plans, and therefore reiterates its request that the Government takes proactive steps to improve the levels of compliance and to provide information on the steps taken to this end. It also once again asks the Government to take steps to raise awareness among employers and workers of the need for, and benefits of, implementing equal opportunity plans and to provide information in this regard.

Article 3(a). Cooperation with the social partners. The Committee notes with regret that the Government has not replied to its previous comments. The Committee once again asks the Government to provide information on any measures adopted to promote cooperation with employers’ and workers’ organizations with a view to fostering the application of the principles of the Convention, including information on their involvement in the activities of the ETA.

Article 5. Special measures. Working time for pregnant women or women with young children. In its previous comments, the Committee, noting that section 113(2) of the Labour Code provides for limitations regarding the working time of an employee from the time “her pregnancy is diagnosed until her child reaches three years of age”, asked the Government to ensure that such protective measures applicable to women are limited to maternity protection in the strict sense. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates its intention to consider reviewing section 113(2) of the Labour Code. The Committee asks the Government to ensure that, in reviewing section 113(2) of the Labour Code, protective measures are limited to maternity protection, in the strict sense, or based on occupational safety and health risk assessments and do not constitute obstacles to the employment of women, in particular to their access to posts with career prospects and responsibilities, and do not reinforce gender stereotypes.

Persons with disabilities. The Committee previously noted that many employers opted to pay rehabilitation contributions instead of fulfilling the 5 per cent target for the employment of persons with disabilities, pursuant to the Reduced Ability Act of 2011. It asked the Government to: (1) take steps to strengthen enforcement of this target, including by considering an increase in the sanctions imposed in cases of non-compliance; and (2) provide information on any specific measures aimed at promoting equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation for persons with disabilities adopted under the National Strategy for Social Convergence and their impact. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that it increased the contribution for lack of compliance to nine times the mandatory minimum basic salary set for a full-time employee, that is, 1,341,000 Hungarian forint per person per year (approximately US$4,460), in comparison to 964,500 forint per person per year in 2017. The Government indicates that, although it does not have accurate information on the impact of this increase, employers’ demand for persons with disabilities and persons with reduced capacity to work has generally been growing. The Committee notes the establishment, in 2016, of the KILATO Centre, a multifunctional career orientation institution whose main objective is to support equal opportunity access to career guidance, further training and labour market services, in particular among young people with disabilities or with special educational needs. In its supplementary information, the Government refers to the adoption of the Training Act of 2019 in which the first vocational qualification is provided free of charge by the state for every Hungarian citizen. The Government indicates that the Act provides for students with special education needs to benefit from vocational training which is adapted to their special educational needs and individual skills. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on: (i) the specific actions taken by the KILATO Centre to assist young people with disabilities in their training and their equal access to employment and occupation, and (ii) on the application in practice of the Training Act of 2019 with regard to facilitating access to vocational training of people with disabilities. It also asks the Government to continue to provide information on the specific measures it is taking to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation for persons with disabilities, and their impact, including information on the participation of persons with disabilities in the public sector in training programmes and the number of participants who have subsequently accessed employment.

Enforcement. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government on the ETA’s various publications, including “Legal Awareness of the Right to Equal Treatment”, and other measures taken to raise public-awareness about the ETA, such as advertisement videos and informational presentations at summer events. The Committee also notes the number of decisions handed down by the ETA regarding discrimination, including on the grounds of Roma origin. It also notes that the Government provides more information on court decisions in its supplementary information. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the preventive and enforcement activities of the ETA. It also asks the Government to continue to provide information on the number and nature of cases dealt with by the judicial courts or the ETA, with regards to discrimination in employment and occupation, including the sanctions imposed and remedies provided.

The Committee notes that the 2016 amendments to the Annexes of the Convention entered into force for Hungary on 8 June 2017. The Committee recalls that these amendments aim at aligning the technical requirements of the Convention with the latest standards adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) with respect to the technology for seafarers’ identity documents (SIDs) provided for in the Convention. In particular, they intend to change the biometric template in SIDs from a fingerprint template in a two-dimensional barcode to a facial image stored in a contactless chip as required by ICAO Document 9303.

Articles 2 to 7 of the Convention. Seafarers’ identity documents (SIDs). Implementation. The Committee previously noted that the Government, referring to Act CII of 2005 on the enactment of Convention No. 185, Act XLII of 2002 on water transport and Decree No. 26/2002 on mariners’ service books, stated that the Convention has become an integral part of domestic law and its provisions are applicable without any separate legal regulation. Noting the absence of specific regulations, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the legal provisions giving effect to the requirements of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that 1) no measures have been taken so far to implement the provisions of the Convention, in particular to issue new SIDs in accordance with the technical requirements of the Convention, as amended in 2016; 2) the vast majority of seafarers sails with private passports and the Maritime Authority does not issue SIDs but only service record books; and 3) the high-level security guarantees related to the issuance of the SIDs prescribed by the Convention, as amended and the operation of the electronic database storing the data of the documents represent a significant and unreasonable burden for Hungary, where the number of seafarers concerned is lower than the number of applicants in coastal states and larger countries. While noting this information, the Committee recalls the Resolution adopted by the third meeting of the Special Tripartite Committee of the Maritime Labour Convention, as amended (MLC, 2006), whereby it expressed concern about the difficulties seafarers continue to have in accessing shore leave and transiting in certain ports and terminals around the world and recognized that although an increased number of member States have ratified Convention No. 185, there still appear to be problems in ensuring that the Convention works in the way that it was originally intended. The Committee notes that these problems have dramatically increased as a result of the restrictions imposed by governments around the world to contain the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee hopes that the Government will adopt in the near future the necessary measures to give full effect to the provisions of the Convention, as amended. It requests the Government to provide detailed information on such measures, including a copy of the applicable national provisions. The Committee further requests the Government to supply a specimen of a SID as soon as it becomes available. The Committee reminds the Government of the possibility to avail itself of the Office technical assistance.

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.

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.

The Committee notes the observations of the employees’ representatives on the National ILO Council, communicated with the Government’s report.

Article 6(2) of the Convention. Participation of insured persons in the management of sickness insurance institutions. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that over the previous reporting period, several changes had taken place with respect to the involvement of insured persons in the oversight of the management and operation of healthcare providers. It also invited the Government to provide further details regarding the manner in which the national law and practice ensured compliance with Article 6 of the Convention, indicating in particular how the participation of insured persons in the management of health insurance institutions, including through trade union organizations representing the interests of insured employees, was guaranteed and how it operated in practice. The Committee notes the Government’s reply in its report indicating that the participation of insured persons in the work of regional healthcare councils is ensured by the representation of patients’ organizations in these councils. Regional healthcare councils are composed of the representative of the municipality of the given region, the representative of the competent health insurance body, one representative of the non-publicly funded healthcare service providers operating in the region and participating in basic healthcare services, one representative of each professional chamber operating in the area of healthcare, respectively, and one joint representative of the patients’ organizations operating in the region. The Government further indicates that the Ministry of Health liaises with the National Patient Forum, an advisory body composed of civil organizations representing patients suffering from the same disease, which also contributes to the representation of insured persons in decision-making processes. The Committee takes due note of this information. The Committee also notes the comments put forward by the employees’ representatives on the National ILO Council, which, as in the past, raise concerns as to the lack of harmonization of the law with Article 6 of the Convention concerning, notably, the participation of insured persons in the management of sickness insurance. They also consider that patients’ organizations are not sufficiently represented in regional health councils, which account for only one representative of patients’ organizations. Based on the above, the Committee is bound to note once again that, while representatives of insured persons are involved in a consultative capacity in the policymaking and supervision of health protection issues, additional clarification is needed on the manner in which their participation in the management of health insurance institutions is ensured, as required by Article 6(2) of the Convention. The Committee thus requests the Government to indicate how, since the restructuring of the health insurance system, the participation of insured persons in the management of health insurance institutions is guaranteed by law and how it is given effect in practice.

The Committee has been informed that, based on the recommendations of the Standards Review Mechanism (SRM) tripartite working group, the Governing Body has decided that member States for which the Sickness Insurance (Industry) Convention, 1927 (No. 24) is in force should be encouraged to ratify the more recent Medical Care and Sickness Benefits Convention, 1969 (No. 130), or the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102), accepting Parts II and III (see GB.328/LILS/2/1). Conventions Nos 130 and 102 reflect the more modern approach to medical care and sickness 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 130 or 102 (Parts II and III) as the most up-to-date instruments in these subject areas.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, which answers the points raised in its previous direct request and has no further matters to raise in this regard.

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Trafficking in persons. The Committee previously noted that section 192(1) and (2) of the revised Criminal Code of 2012 criminalizes the sale, purchase, exchange, transfer, transport, recruit, receipt or shelter of another person for the purpose of exploitation and establishes penalties of one to five years of imprisonment. Increased penalties are provided for under section 192(3) and (4) if trafficking in persons has been committed through the use of force or by deception and for trafficking of persons under the age of 18. The Committee further noted that a National Strategy against Human Trafficking had been adopted for the period 2013–16. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the impact of the abovementioned strategy.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that, the 2016 amendment of the Criminal Code introduced new provisions to allow for the confiscation of the assets acquired by the person committing trafficking in persons (section 192(1)–(7)) or forced labour crimes (section 193). Similarly, the 2017 amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code, which entered into force in 2018, requires that victims of trafficking and forced labour are afforded priority protection. The Government also states that, according to the data of the Ministry of Interior, 19 proceedings were started in the country on the suspicion of trafficking in the period between 1 January 2016 and 30 June 2018. Neither the territorial bodies nor the Emergency Preparedness Unit made any notice to the National Police Headquarters regarding any practical difficulties in relation to the investigation of these criminal offences.

With regard to the National Strategy for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings (2013–16), the Government indicates that the Strategy has set out a total of 47 measures, including: (i) effective identification of victims of trafficking; (ii) strengthening the cooperation with relevant stakeholders; and (iii) protection of the rights of the victims by ensuring their safe return and the government-level mapping of the possibilities of reintegration, including the development of supportive measures. The Government further indicates that there has been no official impact study or impact assessment analysis regarding the implementation and results of the Strategy. However, the Ministry of Interior has started to prepare the new National Strategy against Human Trafficking. Furthermore, the Government indicates that it has participated in the EU Project designated EMPACT (European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Crime Threats), coordinated by Europol that aims at increasing the number of joint investigations and joint investigation teams. Since 2009, a total of 21 joint investigation teams have been established, nine of which were established with regard to the criminal offence of trafficking in persons. In July 2018, seven of these joint investigation teams were in active operation, three of which were in relation to trafficking in persons. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the number of victims who have been identified, protected and reintegrated following the implementation of the National Strategy for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings (2013–16), and to indicate whether the new Strategy to Combat Human Trafficking has been adopted and to provide information in this respect. Moreover, the Committee requests the Government to provide statistical information on the legal proceedings initiated, and convictions and penalties imposed.

Article 4(2) of the Convention. Partial payment of wages in kind. Further to its previous comments on this matter, the Committee takes note of the Government’s reply in its report.

Article 8. Deductions from wages. The Committee notes that in reply to its previous comments on this matter, the Government indicates that the part of wages which may not be subject to deductions in application of section 161(2) of the Labour Code (which allows deductions based on the employee’s consent or for the repayment of advances to the employer) corresponds to an amount of wages that must be available for the employee to make a living. In particular the Government refers to section 161(2)(a), according to which deductions can be made up to the “deduction-free part” of the wages based on the employee’s consent. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how this “deduction-free part” of the wages is legally defined.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, which answers the points raised in its previous direct request and has no further matters to raise in this regard.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee previously noted that, under section 33(1)(d) of Law-Decree No. 11 of 1979, sanctions of imprisonment involve an obligation to perform labour, and that under the Criminal Code of 2012, the court may substitute the term of imprisonment by compulsory community service (sections 33(4) and 47), for offences which carry a maximum sentence of three years of imprisonment. It noted that sanctions of imprisonment ranging from one to three years may be imposed under the following provisions of the Criminal Code: sections 226 and 227 (defamation and slander), section 334 (blasphemy of a national symbol), section 336 (incitement against a decree of authority), section 337 (scaremongering or uttering, publishing a false statement to violate public order) and section 338 (stating or disseminating any untrue fact to disturb public peace). The Committee accordingly requested the Government to take the necessary measures, both in law and in practice, to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour or community service may be imposed for the peaceful expression of political views opposed to the established system.

The Government indicates in its report that sentences imposed under the Criminal Code do not sanction the mere expression of opinions but rather conduct representing a danger to the society. The Government further states that, under the above-mentioned provisions, a total of 2,349 persons were convicted by a final decision, between 1 June 2015 and 31 May 2018. The Committee however takes note of the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders on his mission to Hungary, of 19 January 2017, which states that defamation is a charge regularly brought against investigative journalists, defenders and watchdog organizations (A/HRC/34/52/Add.2, paragraph 31). The Committee considers that the sanctions applied in the above cases may fall within the scope of the Convention as they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of views. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take all the necessary measures, both in law and in practice, to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour or community service are imposed for the peaceful expression of views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, for example by clearly restricting the scope of sections 226, 227, 334, 336, 337 and 338 to situations connected with the use of violence, or by repealing punishments involving compulsory labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard, as well as information on the application in practice of the sections referred to above, specifying the number of prosecutions made under each provisions and the type of penalties imposed.

Articles 2–5 of the Convention. Policy to promote the granting of paid educational leave. Application of the Convention in practice. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information regarding the calculation of “absentee pay”. It further requested the Government to supply information on the extent to which educational leave is dependent on an agreement with the employer. The Government was also requested to provide information on the application of the Convention in practice. The Government reiterates that, pursuant to section 55(1) of the Labour Code, employees may be exempted from their work obligations for the time necessary to enable them to participate in vocational education and training. It adds that, pursuant to section 146(3)(b) of the Code, the employee is entitled to an “absence fee” for this purpose. The Government indicates that the study contract concluded between the employer and employee sets out the parties’ agreement in this regard. In the study contract, the employer commits to providing the employee with support during the period of study, while the employee commits to undertaking the studies specified in the study contract, and to refrain from terminating his or her employment after obtaining the qualification for a period of time proportionate to the amount of support provided. Pursuant to section 229(1) of the Labour Code, this period of time cannot exceed a period of five years. The Government indicates that the nature of the support provided – reimbursement of tuition, purchase of equipment necessary for learning, payment of an absence fee for the duration of lectures, lessons, exams and other expenses – depends on the agreement set out in the study contract. Accordingly, the conditions of educational leave, with the exception of elementary school education (envisaged under section 55(1) of the Labour Code) depend entirely on the agreement made with the employer. The Committee calls upon the Government to ensure that the financial entitlements of workers during paid educational leave enable them to maintain their level of earnings by continued payment of their wages and other benefits, or by adequate compensation therefor, and should take account of any major additional costs of education and training (Paid Educational Leave Recommendation, 1974 (No. 148, Paragraph 20). The Government is also once again requested to provide information on the application of the Convention in practice by including, for instance, extracts from reports, studies, inquiries, and statistics on the numbers of workers granted paid educational leave (Part V of the report form).

Article 2(c). Paid educational leave for trade union education. The Committee previously noted that the 2012 Labour Code does not contain any specific provisions providing for paid educational leave for purposes of trade union education. It therefore requested the Government to provide information on the effects of measures intended to facilitate trade union education, as well as information on the outcome of the evaluation undertaken on the implementation of the 2012 Labour Code. In its response, the Government reports that the role of collective agreements acquired greater importance once the Labour Code entered into force, given the emphasis placed on collective agreements by the new Code. This regulatory approach increased the responsibility of the social partners while reducing governmental regulation. The Government indicates that section 272 of the Labour Code enables trade unions to enter into agreements with employers concerning the granting of additional benefits in relation to trade union training. The Government also reports that section 274 of the Labour Code provides that trade union working-time allowances may be granted to employees in connection with activities related to interest representation, including trade union training. The Committee notes that section 274 does not refer explicitly to trade union education or training, but refers to working-time reduction to which employees are entitled to enable them to discharge their trade union functions. In particular, the Committee notes that section 274(4) provides that working-time reduction shall not be financially compensated. Furthermore, the Government states that the 2015 Consultation Forum of the Competitive Sector and the Government (CSCF) has continued to review the implementation of the Labour Code, and examine amendments proposed by the social partners. The Government indicates that, to date, the consultations have not resulted in proposals that could lead to the introduction of amendments to the Labour Code. As a consequence, the review of the implementation of the Labour Code is still ongoing. Recalling that trade union education must be provided to all workers and that the workers’ organizations concerned should have the responsibility for selecting candidates (Paid Educational Leave Recommendation, 1974 (No. 148), Paragraph 17(2)), the Committee expresses the hope that the Government will soon be in a position to report on progress made in this regard. It also once again requests the Government to provide updated detailed information on the manner in which paid educational leave for the purposes of trade union education is ensured, as required under Article 2(c) of the Convention. In particular, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of collective agreements concluded and their content.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, which answers the points raised in its previous direct request and has no further matters to raise in this regard.

The Committee notes the Government’s second report on the application of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended (MLC, 2006). It also notes that the amendments to the Code approved by the International Labour Conference in 2014 and 2016 entered into force for Hungary on 18 January 2017 and 8 January 2019, respectively. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates that since 2004, there have been no maritime vessels registered flying the flag of Hungary and, at present, there are no Hungarian maritime shipping companies in operation and no Hungarian shipowners. The Committee also notes the adoption of Decree of the Ministry for National Development No. 67/2015. (XI. 18.) on the conditions of seaworthiness of maritime ships based on the Maritime Labour Convention (Decree No. 67/2015). The Committee requests the Government to provide updated information on any developments in the maritime sector, which would have a bearing on the application of the flag State requirements of the Convention. Based on its second review of the information and documents available, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following issues.

Regulation 1.1 and Standard A1.1, paragraph 2. Minimum age. Night work. The Committee previously noted that the interval considered as night under section 89 of the Labour Code lasts eight hours (between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.) and thus is not in conformity with Standard A1.1, paragraph 2, that provides for a period covering at least nine hours. Noting the absence of information in this regard, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure conformity with this provision of the Convention.

Standard A1.1, paragraph 4. Hazardous work. Noting that the existing provisions were of a general nature and do not take into account the specificities of the maritime sector, the Committee requested the Government to adopt the necessary measures to determine the types of work likely to jeopardize the health or safety of seafarers under the age of 18. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s information that pursuant to section 5 of Decree No. 67/2015, the shipowner must ensure that young seafarers may not conduct the following activities on board ships: (a) lifting, moving and transportation of heavy loads and objects; (b) entry into boilers, tanks and cofferdams; (c) exposure to harmful levels of noise and vibration; (d) operation of lifting machinery or other engines or tools, as well as working as a marker assisting the operators of such machines; (e) handling of mooring and tow lines, or mooring anchor equipment; (f) rope works; (g) work performed at height or on the deck in stormy weather; (h) night patrol service; (i) operation of electrical equipment; (j) exposure to potentially harmful substances, harmful physical effects, hazardous or toxic substances and ionizing radiation; (k) cleaning of machine equipment related to catering; (l) operation or controlling of the boats of ships; and (m) working as ship’s cook. The Government also indicates that pursuant to the Shipping Works Safety Policy set out in Annex 4 to KHVM Decree No. 17/1993. (VII. 1.) on the issue of policies relating to the security requirements of certain shipping activities, only persons over 18 years of age may be employed in shipping activities. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 1.4. Recruitment and placement. The Committee noted that Decree No. 383/2014 and Decree No. 118/2001 regulate the registration and functioning of seafarer recruitment and placement agencies in the country. It requested the Government to provide information on how it gives effect to the requirements of Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(a) and (c)(vi), of the Convention. Noting the absence of information in this regard, the Committee recalls that according to the Convention Members shall adopt laws and regulations or other measures to (1) prohibit seafarer recruitment and placement services from using means, mechanisms or lists intended to prevent or deter seafarers from gaining employment for which they are qualified (Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(a)); and (2) establish a system of protection, by way of insurance or an equivalent appropriate measure, to compensate seafarers for monetary loss that they may incur as a result of the failure of a recruitment and placement service or of the relevant shipowner under the seafarers’ employment agreement to meet its obligations to them (Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(c)(vi)). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken that give effect to these provisions of the Convention.

Regulation 2.1 and the Code. Seafarers’ employment agreements. The Committee requested the Government to provide clarification concerning whether or not the Labour Code applies to national and foreign seafarers domiciled in Hungary engaged in ships not flying the Hungarian flag. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the Labour Code, unless otherwise provided, applies to persons who normally work in Hungary (section 3(2)). For seafarers, the flag State is considered as the place of employment, and thus the scope of the Labour Code does not cover persons employed on a vessel not flying the flag of Hungary. In light of this information, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to give effect to Regulation 2.1 and the Code.

Regulation 4.5. Social security. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide clarification regarding whether, and to what extent, the social security legislation is applicable to all seafarers residing in the Hungarian territory. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 4 of Act LXXX of 1997 on persons entitled to social security benefits and private pensions, which defines the term “resident”. It notes that under section 4(3), “natural persons performing work for a foreign employer outside the territory of Hungary, who fall under the scope of this Act pursuant to the Coordination of Social Security Systems Regulation also qualify as insured persons”. The Committee requests the Government to clarify whether seafarers ordinarily resident in Hungary who work on ships flying a foreign flag – especially flying the flag of non-EU countries – are granted sickness benefits, old-age pension benefits and employment injury benefits under the Hungarian social security system, which are no less favourable than those enjoyed by shoreworkers resident in the Hungarian territory.

Comments adopted by the CEACR: Hungary

Adopted by the CEACR in 2021

C081 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C087 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C098 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C129 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C144 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C154 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2020

C100 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C111 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C111 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C185 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2019

C017 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C017 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C024 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C026 - Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C029 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C095 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C099 - Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C105 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C140 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C182 - Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

MLC, 2006 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Comments adopted by the CEACR: Hungary

Display the list by:

Adopted by the CEACR in 2021

C081 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C087 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C098 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C129 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C144 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C154 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2020

C100 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C111 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C111 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C185 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2019

C017 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C017 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C024 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C026 - Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C029 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C095 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C099 - Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C105 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C140 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C182 - Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

MLC, 2006 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)