Interim Report - Report No 256, June 1988

Case No 1402 (Czechoslovakia) - Complaint date: 12-MAR-87 - Closed

1. 310. The Committee examined this case at its November 1987 meeting, when it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body (see 253rd Report, paras. 357 to 380). Since then the Government has sent certain information and observations on this case, in a communication dated 18 April 1988.
2. 311. Czechoslovakia has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 312. In its previous examination of the case, the Committee noted that the allegations of the ICFTU concerned the following: (1) the dissolution by the Government of Czechoslovakia of the Jazz Section of the Musicians' Union of Czechoslovakia (MUC); and (2) the prison sentences allegedly imposed on the Chairman of the Section, Mr. Karel Srp, and its Secretary, Mr. Vladimír Kuril, as well as other trade union activists and leaders, for carrying out trade union activities.
2. 313. As regards the dissolution of the Jazz Section, the ICFTU had explained that this Section had been founded on 30 October 1971, that it was part of the MUC, and that it offered assistance to its membership, consisting of defending the interests of individual performers, and publishing pamphlets on jazz, contemporary music and other cultural subjects. The Jazz Section, whose membership soon grew to several thousand, acted as representative for jazz musicians, organised their performances, and negotiated honoraria and working conditions on their behalf. In 1978, the Jazz Section started to face harassment by the authorities because of the moral support it had extended to members of a musical group who had been tried for expressing views allegedly hostile to the Government. Between 1982 and 1984, the Government launched a series of attacks through the press against the Jazz Section and its activities. In 1983 the Government ordered the Jazz Section to disband, which it refused to do. However, following strong pressure from the Government, the MUC disbanded the Jazz Section on 15 June 1983, thus compelling leaders and members of the Jazz Section to create a new section as part of the Prague division of the MUC. However, the authorities ordered the Prague division to disband by administrative orders of 19 July and 22 October 1984. Faced with this situation, the Jazz Section, which would also have been dissolved as a result of this, replied that, according to its own by-laws, it could decide on its dissolution only by a two-thirds majority vote of its membership. On 21 January 1985, the Ministry of Internal Affairs disregarded this and issued its final decision on the dissolution of the Prague division. On 15 January 1986, the Supreme Court refused to review the legality of the administrative dissolution.
3. 314. According to the ICFTU, the dissolution Decree of 22 October 1984 which had been issued under Act No. 126/68 entitled "Act on certain transitory measures to reinforce the public order", which was adopted in the wake of the events of 1968, and which permits the dissolution, at the Ministry of Internal Affairs' request, of organisations which threaten the stability of the State during a period of crisis, without prior examination by a court of law. This Decree provided that any organisation liable to administrative dissolution could lodge an appeal (but this right was subsequently removed by Decree No. 99 (para. 6) of 22 August 1969, for a period ending 31 December 1969). The ICFTU states that the dissolution Decree of October 1984 should have mentioned the possibility of lodging an appeal. The Jazz Section appealed to the Constitutional Court on the grounds that the legislation invoked for the organisation's dissolution, namely, Act No. 126/68, had been of a temporary nature and should therefore be deemed to have fallen into desuetude. Although the Constitutional Court had been set up in 1968, it was never formally installed and thus the appeal had not been heard. Another legal petition to quash the Decree, introduced by the complainants before the Prague Municipal Court, had also been rejected ab initio and on appeal, explained the ICFTU.
4. 315. As concerns the arrests, the ICFTU had stated that, in addition to the arrests of the President and Secretary of the Jazz Section, other members of its Steering Committee had also been sentenced to imprisonment for engaging in "illegal lucrative activities". By a decision of 11 March 1987 of the Prague District Court No. 2, upheld on appeal on 12 May of the same year, the Chairman of the Jazz Section, Mr. Karel Srp, was sentenced to 16 months' detention, and Mr Vladimír Kuril, Secretary of the Section, to ten months; Mr. Josef Skalnik, Deputy-Chairman, to a ten month suspended sentence and three years' probation; Mr. Cestmír Hunat and Mr. Tomás Krivánek were placed on probation for two years. Two other defendants in the trial, Mr. Milos Drda and Mr. Vlastimil Drda, both excused from appearing in court on medical grounds, were to stand trial at a later date. According to the ICFTU, all of these trade unionists had been arrested on 2 September 1986 for "operating an unauthorised enterprise", "illegal lucrative activities" and "distribution of illegal publications". On 28 December 1986, a Prague court ordered the release of two members of the Jazz Section, Mr. Josef Skalnik and Mr. Milos Drda and, on 22 January 1987, another court ordered the release of Vlastimil Drda, Tomás Krivánek and Cestmír Hunat.
5. 316. The complainant organisation had stated that the arrest of the seven above-mentioned persons had been the culmination of several years of administrative harassment of the Jazz Section, as well as anti-union discrimination in employment and judicial repression against its leaders and members.
6. 317. The ICFTU had alleged the following harassment: Mr. Karel Srp, Chairman of the Jazz Section, had lost his post as technical editor for the state-owned Panton recording company on 28 February 1984 because of his trade union activities. In addition, the headquarters of the Jazz Section were allegedly raided by officials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the police, who took away files, membership lists, books and casette tapes.
7. 318. In October 1985, Mr. Petr Cibulka, member of the Jazz Section and signatory of the Charter 77, was allegedly sentenced to seven months' imprisonment for having "insulted the nation"; according to the Jazz Section, he was in fact being prosecuted for his activities linked to the Section. On 15 January 1986, an appeal court upheld the sentence and imposed three subsequent years of "protective supervision".
8. 319. After losing his job, Mr. Karel Srp was allegedly accused on 18 December 1985 of "social parasitism" by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and threatened with charges of "illegal lucrative activities" within the Jazz Section. These threats were allegedly linked to Mr. Srp's presence at the Cultural Forum of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, held in Budapest as part of the Helsinki agreements; on 8 January 1986, the authorities allegedly withdrew Mr. Srp's passport, in apparent retaliation for his trip to Budapest.
9. 320. According to the ICFTU, the notice of dismissal given to Mr. Karel Srp on 27 November 1983 was explained by an administrative reorganisation of the Panton Music Fund which eliminated the post of technical editor which Mr. Srp had held for 11 years and for which he had been decorated as an exemplary worker. Mr. Srp challenged the legality of the notice in court; however, Prague District Court No. 1 rejected this challenge on 7 June 1984, and its decision was upheld on appeal on 7 September 1984. Mr. Srp remained unemployed for a certain time and subsequently found work at the JRD co-operative farm in Kamenica. According to the ICFTU, the courts' decisions were based on the above-mentioned administrative reorganisation, and on the fact that no position within the Panton enterprise was available for Mr. Srp. The complainant organisation states that copies of documents show that certain state authorities, in particular the Ministry of Culture, had exceeded their mandate by seeking to have Mr. Srp dismissed because of his activities in the Jazz Section. It appears that the authorities fabricated a situation by taking measures to ensure that Mr. Srp's dismissal would appear to be in accordance with the spirit of the law and international Conventions. On 13 March 1987, states the ICFTU, Mr. Srp requested authorisation to reopen the case, but the Municipal Court referred the case to another jurisdiction on 30 March. The ICFTU states that, at the time of the complaint, the post of technical editor which Mr. Srp had held previously had been reinstated.
10. 321. The ICFTU also alleges the arrest and imprisonment of other members of the Jazz Section on 28 April 1986: Mr. Jaroslav Svestka was sentenced to two years' imprisonment followed by three years' protective custody for "harming the Republic's interests abroad". The sentence appears to be related to Mr. Svestka's attempt to seek international support for the Jazz Section and its members. His sentence was later reduced on appeal. Mr. Vlastimil Marek was arrested and charged with the same offence. However, he was released after two months.
11. 322. Lastly, the ICFTU had explained that the court had refused to hear the testimony of Mr. Prusha, the Section's legal adviser (he had previously been prevented by the authorities from exercising his professional duties as an attorney in four civil cases); the only matters examined by the court had been the accusations concerning the Jazz Section's financial activities, and the court had not debated the legality of the Jazz Section's dissolution; moreover, the president of the court, Judge Vladimir Striborik, had imposed considerably lighter sentences than those requested by the State Prosecutor (a four-year sentence against Mr. Karel Srp) and had said that the Jazz Section's work was "of high quality ... (and) commendable, but needs a legalised form". Hence, stated the ICFTU, it appeared that the judge's sentences were based on section 118(1) of the Penal Code, which punishes illegal economic activities, whereas the prosecution had based its calls for severe sentences on section 118(2) which concerns the exercise of illegal economic activities "involving considerable profit". According to the ICFTU, the application of the lighter sentences under paragraph 1 of section 118 implied that the court chose to take into account only such economic activities as were conducted after 15 January 1986, the date on which the Supreme Court refused to review the legality of the administrative dissolution of the Jazz Section of the Prague division, and not those undertaken since 22 October 1984, as requested by the prosecution, which is the date of the second dissolution Decree issued by the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
12. 323. At its previous examination of the case, the Committee had been informed that the Government, in a communication dated 28 May 1987, had sent its observations concerning the allegations of the ICFTU. It had recalled that the Jazz Section had been set up in October 1971 as a section of the Musicians' Union, a "voluntary mutual interest organisation". Its aims and duties, as well as the nature of its activities, stated the Government, were subject to the "Regulations for organisations" approved by the Musicians' Trade Union Central Committee. The Government had enclosed a copy of this document as well as Newsletter No. 1 (dated 30 October 1971) of the Jazz Section. The Government had also enclosed with its reply a copy of the objectives which the Jazz Section had drawn up upon its creation, namely "to promote the development of jazz music and foster its integration into society's cultural life".
13. 324. According to the Government, the Jazz Section had considerably overstepped its mandate over the years; in addition to its activities in the area of music, it had published books and other publications on such subjects as creative arts, photography and fiction and the translation of foreign writers. It had also engaged in the production and sale of posters and the recording of music on cassettes which it then sold; it had organised exhibits for a number of organisations and other promotional activities. In the area of music, in keeping with its objectives, the Jazz Section had helped to establish groups of non-professional musicians and organised concerts and recitals for professional and amateur musicians.
14. 325. Leaving aside the questions of legality, tax evasion, copyright infringement and others which had marked the Jazz Section's activities, the Government had indicated that, in addition to fulfilling its objectives as regards the promotion of jazz music, the Jazz Section had engaged in a number of commercial operations. According to the Government, the Jazz Section's activities had never been concerned with the occupational interests of its members, and the Jazz Section had never aspired to become a trade union organisation, or pretended to be one. Rather, its members were jazz fans, and those among them who were employed, were organised at their workplace. Most professional musicians, with the exception of self-employed artists, belonged to the Trade Union of Workers in Art, Culture and Social Organisations; this trade union was part of the workers' movement and participated in collective bargaining on behalf of its members with their employers; the fruits of this bargaining were reflected in the regulations concerning wages and conditions of work issued by state bodies. These regulations applied to professional as well as amateur musicians.
15. 326. The Government had stated that none of the members of the Jazz Section considered their affiliation to the Section as equivalent to membership in a trade union organisation; moreover, none of them had renounced their membership in the Revolutionary Trade Union Movement owing to their membership in the Jazz Section. Thus, the Government did not consider that there was any relationship between the activities of the Jazz Section and its own obligations flowing from its ratification of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 on freedom of association and collective bargaining.
16. 327. On the basis of the information available to it, at its November 1987 Session, the Committee had submitted the following interim conclusions to the Governing Body:
    • a) In order to be in a position to reach conclusions on the grounds for the detention of Mr. Karel Srp and other leaders and members of the Jazz Section, the Committee requests the Government to send copies of the judgements handed down against them.
    • b) The Committee recalls the principle concerning the non-dissolution of workers' organisations by administrative authority and requests the Government to ensure that workers may freely establish the organisations of their choice, and manage and administer them without interference. It also requests the Government to re-examine its position concerning the Jazz Section, in the light of the foregoing conclusions and the principles of freedom of association.
    • c) The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the searches made of the Jazz Section's premises by the administrative authorities and the police, as well as the seizure of files and membership lists.
    • d) The Committee requests the Government to supply information concerning the dismissal of Mr. Karel Srp.

B. The Government's reply

1. 328. In its reply dated 18 April 1988, the Government refers to the statement made by the Czechoslovakian Government delegate before the Governing Body of the ILO in November 1987, from which it appears that the Government cannot accept the conclusions adopted by the Committee and that therefore it will not proceed according to the recommendations contained in paragraph 380 of the 253rd Report of the Committee.
2. 329. The Government states in particular that it does not agree with the contents of paragraph 377 of the report, in which the Committee expressed the view that the former Jazz Section had been a trade union organisation. It considers it strange that the Committee stated no grounds for such a conclusion, as this was a key issue for the consideration of the complaint. The Government also objects to the fact that this conclusion was reached by the Committee after having admitted that "the regulations of the Jazz Section" did not define any trade union aspects of the Section's activities. Neither did the Committee indicate which other aspects of the Section's activities had been considered to be of a trade union nature. A careful reading of paragraphs 369 to 373 leads to the conclusion that the Committee received incomplete and distorted information concerning the Government's reply. Substantial parts of the Government's reply were omitted, relevant documents not reproduced, and changes were even made in the Government's reply, distorting the meaning of the text. The Government fails to understand the reasons for such peculiar practice, the more so since all of these changes and omissions tended to play down arguments proving that the Jazz Section had never been a trade union organisation and had never engaged in trade union activities. In these circumstances, the Government considers that the conclusions adopted by the Committee are based on a wrong assumption, namely that the members of the Jazz Section were professional musicians and that the Section defended their occupational interests.
3. 330. The Government considers that the matter should be re-examined taking the following into account:
   • a)that an important passage referring to the Regulations of the Jazz Section, quoted by the Government representative in the Governing Body, had been omitted from the Government's reply and the text of the regulations of the Jazz Section and that of the resolution adopted at the constituent conference of the Jazz Section, where the main objectives of the Section were defined, had not been included in the Governing Body document (the Government wonders what other arguments are more convincing than authentic texts; it encloses the English translation of the documents in question);
   • b)the title "Regulations for Organisations" was used in paragraph 370, although it must have been evident that the document in question represented the statutes or regulations of the Jazz Section (in Czech, organizacní rád); the plural used in the ILO document could imply the intention to downgrade the importance of this document with respect to the consideration of this case;
   • c)in paragraph 370 the Government's reply was distorted by stating that the "Regulations for organisations were approved by the Musicians' Trade Union Central Committee"; neither the Government's reply, which had been sent in Czech, nor the unofficial translation into English made any mention of a musicians' "trade" union central committee, because no such trade union had ever existed; the Government's reply had been changed and a word had been added, turning upside down the information provided;
   • d)finally, the statement made by the Government to the effect that the members of the Jazz Section were prevailingly, i.e. predominantly, jazz fans, was distorted by stating that they were "rather" fans. This change prevented the Committee from reaching the obvious conclusion that the Jazz Section could not defend occupational interests of fans, i.e. of students, apprentices and young workers of various occupations who formed the overwhelming majority of its members.
4. 331. The Government requests that the case be resubmitted to the Committee on Freedom of Association, together with full information provided by the Government, so that the case might be reconsidered on the basis of full and undistorted information.
5. 332. The Government also supplies the following additional information concerning the membership of the Jazz Section. During the various years of its existence, the membership of the Jazz Section ranged from 2,500 to 4,000, states the Government. The vast majority of members, i.e. more than 90 per cent, were fans, people interested in jazz music. The percentage of fans in the total tended to increase with the growing membership. The remaining members were amateur musicians and collective members, such as libraries, which, through membership, ensured supplies of the Section's publications. Individuals ordering publications sometimes also registered as members. According to the Government, the relationship of the Jazz Section members to real trade union organisations can be illustrated by referring to the case of members of its presidium:
   • - Mr. Karel Srp was employed in the Panton Recording Company and was a member of the Trade Union of Art, Culture and Social Organisations' Workers;
   • - Mr. Cestmír Hunat was employed in the Administration of Commerce Housing Facilities and was a member of the Trade Union of Commerce Workers;
   • - Mr. Vladimír Kouril was employed as a designer in Metroprojekt, Prague, and was a member of the Trade Union of Transport Workers;
   • - Mr. Tomás Krivánek was a mechanic in the Regional Administration of Telecommunications and was a member of the Trade Union of Communications Workers; none of them were professional musicians.
6. 333. The Government also defines the dividing line which, in its view, lies between trade union organisations on the one hand, and other types of associations, on the other. According to Article 10 of Convention No. 87, the term "organisation" means any organisation of workers or of employers for furthering and defending the interests of workers or of employers. According to the Government, this definition means that the organisations concerned must be those of workers or of employers - and not those of any persons with common or mutual interests, and that these organisations are expected to defend the interests of workers or of employers, i.e., their occupational interests, and not any other interests. The definition can be further understood to mean that organisations claiming protection under Convention No. 87 should meet two basic conditions. At the outset, they must clearly express the intention to associate workers or employers and to defend their occupational interests and they should be able to demonstrate that their real activities consist in whole or predominantly in defending occupational interests of their members. Where these conditions are not met the national legislation, and its application in practice, is unable to provide protection in accordance with Convention No. 87.
7. 334. In the present case, states the Government, none of these conditions had been met. The declared objective of the Jazz Section (section 2 of its Regulations) was to associate jazz musicians and friends of jazz with the objective of promoting the development of jazz music and of contributing to its progress in the cultural life of society, and by no means to defend occupational interests of jazz musicians and of friends of jazz. Consequently, professional musicians did not join the Section and its membership consisted of people sharing the same hobby. The activities of the Jazz Section had never consisted and could not consist in defending occupational interests of its members; no aspect of its activities concerned collective bargaining, conclusion of collective agreements or similar trade union activities.
8. 335. In order to avoid further possible doubts, the Government states that the membership of a small number of amateur musicians (of different occupations) in the Jazz Section in no way implied the alleged trade union character of the Jazz Section. The situation, explains the Government, is similar to that of a number of associations and unions, such as unions of small-plot gardeners, animal- and bird-breeders, sporting club fans, etc., which according to their statutes "defend the interests" of their members. These specific interests correspond to the objectives of the organisations concerned. That is why national legislation makes a distinction between trade union organisations, which are not subject to approval or control by the state authorities, and organisations of a general nature (the Czech term is "voluntary social organisations"), the activities of which are subject to Law No. 68 of 1951. The title of the organisation is not relevant. There exist various unions, associations, federations, clubs, etc., which are covered by this Law. However, none of these organisations bears the title "trade union organisation" or "trade union" or engages in trade union activities.
9. 336. The Government concludes by stating that governments implementing the Conventions and the ILO supervisory bodies should have a common objective, i.e. to understand fully the meaning of the Conventions. It is generally recognised that the ILO supervisory bodies cannot interpret international Conventions. Interpretations, especially extensive interpretations, might lead to uncertainties concerning the contents and scope of obligations accepted by the States concerned in ratifying a Convention. This case also shows that extensive interpretation as to the scope of the Convention could also open the way towards misusing the supervisory machinery.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 337. The Committee observes that this case concerns allegations of the ICFTU relating to the dissolution by administrative authority of the Jazz Section of the Musician's Union of Czechoslovakia (MUC) and to anti-trade union reprisals, including prison sentences and dismissals of trade union leaders, and to the occupation of premises and confiscation of trade union property.
2. 338. The Committee notes that the accounts given by the complainant confederation and the Government concerning the status of the Jazz Section, which is the subject of the complaint, are completely contradictory.
3. 339. According to the complainant confederation, the Government interfered in the affairs of a trade union organisation. In violation of Article 4 of Convention No. 87, which is ratified by Czechoslovakia, it dissolved, by administrative authority, a trade union organisation which, according to the ICFTU, was part of the Musician's Union of Czechoslovakia (MUC), and which acted as a representative of jazz musicians, organised their performances, and negotiated honoraria and working conditions on their behalf, because of the moral support which this organisation had extended, in particular, to members of a musical group who had been tried for expressing views allegedly hostile to the Government. The dissolution had been ordered in application of the "Act on certain transitory measures to reinforce the public order", which was adopted in the wake of the events of 1968, and which permits the dissolution, at the Ministry of Internal Affairs' request, of organisations which threaten the stability of the State during a period of crisis. The courts had also imposed prison sentences on a number of members of the Jazz Section, including its Chairman, who was sentenced to 16 months' imprisonment, and its Secretary, to ten months' imprisonment, as well as other members of the Section, to seven months' and two years' imprisonment, respectively, for engaging in illegal lucrative activities, for insulting the nation or for harming the Republic's interests abroad. Still others had been given suspended sentences and were subjected to long probationary periods. In fact, according to the complainant, these persons had been convicted for their trade union activities. Moreover, the Chairman of the Section is alleged to have been dismissed on the pretext that his post of technical editor had been eliminated (whereas the post had subsequently been reinstated), and threatened with charges of social parasitism and illegal lucrative activies within the Jazz Section. Finally, the headquarters of the Jazz Section had been raided by officials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and police officers, who had removed files, membership lists, books and cassette tapes.
4. 340. According to the Government, on the other hand, the organisation which is the subject of the complaint is not a trade union organisation within the meaning of Article 10 of Convention No. 87, i.e. an organisation of workers for furthering and defending the interests of workers. Indeed, under the terms of its Regulations (section 2), the aim of this organisation is to assemble musicians and friends of jazz with a view to promoting the development of jazz and to contributing to its progress in the cultural life of society. According to the Government, it is in no way the aim of this organisation to defend the occupational interests of musicians and friends of jazz, and no aspect of its activities have concerned collective bargaining, the conclusion of collective agreements or similar trade union activities.
5. 341. The Committee can therefore only note that the Government considers that the complainant has misused the supervisory machinery, since the complaint does not concern an organisation of workers for furthering and defending the interests of its members.
6. 342. In this respect, the Committee on Freedom of Association has considered in previous reports (See, in particular, 25th Report, Case No. 158 (Hungary), para. 327) that the principles which are applicable for the purpose of determining whether an organisation is entitled to submit a complaint to the Committee are equally applicable for the purpose of determining whether an organisation is one to which the procedure for the examination of allegations of infringements of trade union rights applies. Already, in its First Report, the Committee had occasion to examine the meaning of the term "organisation of workers". It then adopted a criterion based on the conclusions unanimously approved by the Governing Body in 1937, concerning a representation of the Labour Party of the Island of Mauritius. In that case, the Committee had affirmed that it was the responsibility of the Committee to determine, in each case, the actual nature of an organisation, irrespective of its title. The Governing Body had therefore laid down the principle that it would exercise its discretion in deciding whether or not a body is to be regarded as an "industrial association" for the purpose of the Constitution of the Organisation, and would not consider itself bound by any national definition of this term. The Committee therefore declared its intention to follow the same principle in examining the receivability of all of the complaints referred to it.
7. 343. In the present case, the question which arises is therefore whether the organisation to which the complaint refers is an occupational organisation within the meaning of the ILO Constitution and Article 10 of Convention No. 87. Since it is the Committee's responsibility to state its opinion on this point first, it must gather the most exhaustive information possible in order to reach a conclusion in full knowledge of the case. Given the information now at its disposal, the Committee can only note the obvious contradictions between the assertions of the complainant organisation and the Government's statements. Moreover, the Regulations of the Jazz Section and the resolution adopted at its constituent conference fail to elucidate the nature of the activities which it intended to carry out within the framework of the Musicians' Union to which it was attached. The Committee therefore requires additional information in order to decide whether or not the organisation concerned is a trade union.
8. 344. The Committee therefore considers that it is for the complainant confederation to supply additional information on what it considers to be the trade union nature of the Jazz Section referred to in the complaint, with particular regard to any specific activities which it may have carried out in order to defend the occupational interests of its members.
9. 345. The Committee further considers that precise information on the specific grounds for the sentences handed down against the leaders of the Jazz Section - and in particular the texts of the judgements - and on the circumstances of, and reasons for the administrative authorities' raid on the premises of the Section would enable it to conduct a more thorough examination into the activities engaged in by the Jazz Section and its leaders.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 346. In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • a) In view of the contradiction between the complainant's opinion and that of the Government as to the trade union nature of the Jazz Section referred to in the complaint, the Committee considers that, given the information now at its disposal, it is not yet in a position to decide whether or not the organisation concerned is an occupational organisation within the meaning attributed by the ILO.
   • b) The Committee therefore requests, on the one hand, the complainant confederation to supply additional information on what it considers to be the trade union nature of the Jazz Section referred to in the complaint, with particular regard to any specific activities which it may have carried out in order to defend the occupational interests of its members; on the other hand, it requests the Government to supply precise information on the specific grounds for the sentences handed down against the leaders of the Jazz Section, and on the circumstances of, and reasons for the administrative authorities' raid on the premises of the Section.

Z. ANNEX

• APPENDIX I
• Resolution adopted by the Constitutional Conference of the Jazz Section of the
• Union of Musicians CSR
• The Jazz Section of the Union of Musicians CSR, constituted by this
• Conference, is linked with the progressive traditions of jazz in our country
• represented by Gramoclub, association of friends of dance and jazz music or
• Czechoslovakian Jazz Federation.
• The main task of the Jazz Section is to promote the development of jazz and
• contribute to its expansion in the socialist society as an integral component
• of musical culture.
• Its declared objective is to provide assistance in solving the present
• situation (problems) of jazz and deal with questions of conceptual nature, to
• organise performances, concerts, competitions and exhibitions, to participate
• in the organisation of shows and festivals, to elaborate competition rules and
• draft verdicts; to contribute actively to the training and education of jazz
• musicians and experts in jazz and participate in the press and editorial
• activities in this sphere; to provide services to members, to keep membership
• records, file documents and archives; to promote mutual assistance and
  • co-operation of jazz musicians and friends of jazz, jazz bands and jazz clubs.
• The Section will co-operate with all competent organisations and institutions.
• The Jazz Section of the Union of Musicians CSR wants to be part of our
• progressive cultural front and to contribute by its activities to making our
• life more rich.
• Adopted unanimously. Prague, 30 October 1971.
• ANNEX
• APPENDIX II
• Regulations of the Jazz Section
• Section 1. Title, nature, headquarters, operation
• The organisation bears the title "Jazz Section of the Union of Musicians". It
• forms part of the organisation of common interest "Union of Musicians" and has
• its headquarters in Prague. It is a branch of the Union of Musicians but
• operates only in the territory of the CSR. According to section 5 of the
• statutes of the Union of Musicians, the Jazz Section is a legal person.
• Section 2. Mission, objectives and tasks
• The Jazz Section assembles on a voluntary basis musicians and friends of jazz
• with the view to promote the development of jazz and to contribute to its
• progress in the cultural life of the society. It endeavours to achieve it by:
  • a) studying on a planned basis problems of contemporary jazz, its
• perspectives and issues of conceptual nature;
  • b) organising performances, concerts, competitions, festivals, exhibitions,
• elaborating competition rules and draft verdicts;
  • c) dealing in questions of training and education of jazz musicians and
• experts in jazz;
  • d) participating in press and editorial activities in its line and making
• comments on the contents and conception of the respective materials;
  • e) promoting enrolment of new members, keeping membership records,
• gathering information concerning all active groups and individuals and keeping
• accurate records on them;
  • f) filing independent documentation concerning jazz activities;
  • g) representing subject to approval of the competent State authorities the
• jazz movement in international organisations;
  • h) elaborating plans and programmes of activity, discussing them with the
• representatives of the bodies of the State administration, organisations and
• institutions;
  • i) co-operating with the Union of Composers and similar unions or
• associations in other spheres of interest artistic activities, with
• specialised press and means of mass media;
  • j) discussing and putting forward proposals for awarding distinctions and
• honours in the sphere of jazz;
  • k) mediating with respect to mutual assistance among jazz musicians and
• friends of jazz, jazz bands, jazz clubs and securing available benefits for
• its members.
• (Other sections deal with the rights and duties of the members, organs of the
• Section, jazz clubs, financial arrangements and other questions not connected
• with the Section's activities, with the exception of:)
• Section 3, paragraph 5 - Collective membership
• The possibility of collective membership is available to other organisations
• of jazz music or jazz bands that strive for similar objectives (e.g. national
• education institutions, enterprise clubs, committees of mass organisations,
• etc.). Admission is subject to approval by the jazz club committee which
• determines the conditions of mutual relationship, representation shares in the
• bodies of the Union of Musicians and the Jazz Section, cessation of
• membership, etc.