Definitive Report - Report No 15, 1955

Case No 99 (France) - Complaint date: 01-APR-54 - Closed

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 21. The complaint consists of a protest on the part of the Inter-Union Committee of Printing Trade Workers (Paris) against a governmental decision alleged to have prohibited a procession intended to enable the workers of Paris to demonstrate on the occasion of May Day 1954.
   • ANALYSIS OF THE REPLY
2. 22. In a letter dated 15 February 1955, the Government indicates that a Legislative Decree of 23 October 1935 makes demonstrations on the public highway subject to prior notification and allows them to be prohibited if they are considered likely to disturb public order. The Government states that the prohibition complained against falls within the general powers of the police and was occasioned, having regard to the circumstances then prevailing, solely by a desire to maintain public order.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 23. France has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention (No. 87), 1948.
2. 24. The complainant considers that the prohibition by the French Government of a procession arranged to take place in Paris on the occasion of May Day 1954 constituted an infringement of the freedom of association of the workers of Paris.
3. 25. In several earlier cases the Committee has had occasion to emphasise that the right to organise public meetings, particularly on the occasion of May Day, constitutes an important aspect of trade union rights.
4. 26. In the present case the Government does not deny that the procession was prohibited, but states that under a Legislative Decree of 23 October 1935, which makes demonstrations on the public highway subject to previous notification, they may be prohibited if they are likely to disturb public order. The prohibition in question in this case was occasioned, the Government emphasises, having regard to the circumstances then prevailing, solely by a desire to maintain public order.
5. 27. It would appear from the Government's reply that the prohibition related not to a public meeting but to a demonstration on the public highway. Although the Government does not refer to it, it is known that this measure, while it placed obstacles in the way of a procession of workers on a particular route, did not prevent the workers in Paris from participating on 1 May 1954 in a public meeting held on the outskirts of the capital.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 28. In these circumstances, while regretting the lack of details in the Government's reply, the Committee, noting that the prohibition complained against related not to a public demonstration but to the holding of that demonstration on the public highway, and that a public meeting was organised on 1 May 1954 in another part of the capital, in which the Paris workers were able to participate, considers that the complainant has not offered proof that the measure taken constituted an infringement of the exercise of trade union rights and, therefore, recommends the Governing Body to decide that the case does not call for further examination.