Interim Report - Report No 344, March 2007

Case No 2486 (Romania) - Complaint date: 22-MAY-06 - Closed

Allegations: The complainant organization alleges that several trade union leaders were arrested on more than one occasion on suspicion of incitement to subvert the authority of the State and of disturbing public order, whereas they were in fact carrying out legitimate trade union activities regarding the defence of workers and strike action in response to mine closures. The trade union leaders in question were finally sentenced in September 2005, one to ten years in prison and the other five to five years in prison

1159. The complaint is contained in a communication of the National Trade Union Confederation MERIDIAN, dated 22 May 2006. Additional information was submitted by the complainant in a communication dated 1 February 2007.

1. 1160. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 16 October 2006.
2. 1161. Romania has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant organization’s allegations

1. 1162. In its communication of 22 May 2006, the complainant organization alleges that six miners (Miron Cozma, Constantin Cretan, Romeo Beja, Dorin Lois, Vasile Lupu and Ionel Ciontu), including five trade union representatives, were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment, despite appeals to the Supreme Court. At the time of the complaint, Miron Cozma, Constantin Cretan, Dorin Lois, Vasile Lupu and Ionel Ciontu were imprisoned in conditions that, at times, were a threat to their health and safety.
2. 1163. The complainant organization alleges that, as of 1990, faced with plans to restructure the mining industry, the miners submitted their demands to their trade union organizations, the main one being the adoption of a collective agreement, the defence of jobs and the provision of new jobs in the case of redundancy. One year later, in 1991, the miners’ trade unions were forced to call for a strike in protest against the non-payment of wages. The trade unions obtained an agreement guaranteeing the payment of and increase in wages and the conclusion of the first collective agreement between the trade unions and the employers. However, the commitments made regarding the payment of wages were not honoured.
3. 1164. According to the complainant organization, in September 1991, Miron Cozma, a member of the executive committee of the Jiu Valley miners’ trade union, was asked by the union’s members to open negotiations with the Prime Minister. When all efforts to open meaningful negotiations failed, the members of the Jiu Valley trade union decided to hold a demonstration in Bucharest, in front of the seat of government. All the statements made by the trade union at the time show that the sole aim of this trade union action was to initiate negotiations with the Government. Once their demands had been met through a protocol signed with the Government, the miners left Bucharest and returned to their homes.
4. 1165. Miron Cozma represented Romania as a member of the Workers’ group at the 1994 and 1995 sessions of the International Labour Conference.
5. 1166. The complainant organization alleges that Miron Cozma was arrested in February 1997 on charges of “incitement to undermine the authority of the State”, charges that were subsequently altered to “disturbance of public order”, for having been the main trade union leader in charge of organizing the march in Bucharest carried out by the miners in September 1991.
6. 1167. In 1998, Miron Cozma was sentenced by the Bucharest Appeal Court to three years in prison (of which a year and a half was suspended), before being released.
7. 1168. On 12 December 1998, following his release, Miron Cozma was re-elected President of the Jiu Valley miners’ trade union. Shortly afterwards, the Minister for Industry announced that two mines were to be closed in the Jiu Valley. In his role as trade union leader, Miron Cozma was asked to enter into negotiations with the Ministry.
8. 1169. According to the complainant organization, on 4 January 1999, having failed to obtain any guarantees, the Jiu Vally miners’ trade unions voted in favour of strike action, their main demand being an increase in the budget for the mines. On 5 January 1999, the Government announced that, “faced with the ultimatum issued by the Jiu Valley miners’ trade unions, the Government of Romania declares that there will be no dialogue under conditions of coercion imposed by the protestors”. The strike lasted for 14 days. Throughout that period, the trade union tried to find a solution to the conflict. Having failed to obtain any satisfaction regarding their demands, the miners gathered in front of the mining company headquarters and decided to call on their trade unions to demonstrate in Bucharest, in front of the seat of government. Discussions continued until 18 January but proved to be fruitless. The miners began their march, asking their trade union representatives to lead them to Bucharest. Upon arrival in Tirgu Jiu (the main town in the mining region of the Jiu Valley), the miners and their trade union leaders once again proposed opening negotiations with the Government, in vain. At this time, Miron Cozma, Constantin Cretan, Romeo Beja, Dorin Lois and Ionel Ciontu were leading members of the miners’ trade union movement of the Jiu Valley and the Oltenia region. After the march went ahead, negotiations were opened at Cozia.
9. 1170. On 22 January 1999, an agreement known as the “Cozia Agreement” was concluded between the trade union representatives and the Government, with the signature of a three-part protocol. The agreement (one of the signatories to which on the trade union side was Miron Cozma) guaranteed that no sanctions would be imposed on the miners or trade union leaders; that the two mines in the Jiu Valley would not be closed; and that the necessary subsidies and investment would be provided to maintain sustainable mining activity in the region.
10. 1171. However, the complainant organization alleges that, in early February 1999, noting that these guarantees had not been implemented, the miners and their trade union organization decided, on 9 February, to hold another march on Bucharest. Six days later, on 15 February 1999, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling concerning the charges against Miron Cozma in connection with the events of 1991. He was sentenced to 18 years in prison. This sentence followed an appeal by the prosecutor to the Supreme Court against the three-year sentence handed down in 1997 (18 months of which was suspended).
11. 1172. At the end of February 1999, Miron Cozma, arrested during the trade union demonstrations, was sent back to prison. New proceedings were initiated shortly afterwards, this time in connection with the trade union demonstrations of January 1999.
12. 1173. On 12 December 2003, the Appeal Court heard a new case concerning the trade union demonstrations of January 1999. Miron Cozma was sentenced to ten years in prison, and Constantin Cretan, Romeo Beja, Dorin Lois, Vasile Lupu and Ionel Ciontu to five years in prison. The complainant organization emphasizes that the sections on which the sentences were based were introduced into the Penal Code during the time of the dictator Ceausescu and remained in force after 1989. They include sections dealing with “incitement to undermine the authority of the State” (section 69/162), and “non-respect of an employment contract” (a section which prohibited, de facto, the right to strike under the Ceausescu regime).
13. 1174. An appeal was lodged with the Supreme Court, which later became the High Court of Appeal and Justice, which, after several deferments (see below), handed down a final ruling on 28 September 2005, upholding the prison sentences.
14. 1175. The first hearing of the case before the High Court regarding the events of January 1999 took place on 5 July 2004. On 15 October 2004, a new hearing was held before the same High Court, during which the appeal against the sentences for “undermining the authority of the State” was examined. According to the complainant organization, after a few minutes’ deliberation, the panel of three judges decided to defer handing down a ruling until 10 December, on the grounds of an error in procedure in relation to the civil action.
15. 1176. On 15 December 2004, following the presidential election, President Illiescu used his presidential pardon to free around 50 prisoners, including Miron Cozma. On 16 December 2004, Miron Cozma was released from prison by presidential decree.
16. 1177. He was re-arrested on 17 December in the presence of his son by the Timisoara police on the grounds that he was not carrying any identity papers. On the same evening, he was put on a plane and flown to Bucharest to answer questions from the Public Prosecutor’s Office regarding organized crime with which his name had been linked. By the time the presidential pardon issued by former President Illiescu had been officially revoked, Miron Cozma was once again in prison.
17. 1178. On 14 June 2005, the Craiova Court decided to annul the revocation of the presidential pardon of December 2004 and ruled that Miron Cozma, who had spent six more months in prison, should be released.
18. 1179. According to the complainant organization, following his release, which was announced on 14 June 2005, Miron Cozma was forbidden from staying in or passing through Bucharest and Petrosani, a large mining town, for a period of 17 years. He was strictly forbidden to stand for election to any trade union office (with special reference to his own trade union organization), as well as any political or public office. His parental rights were revoked in the light of the charges against him concerning a “crime against the State”.
19. 1180. On 12 September 2005, a new case, involving the six trade unionist miners (Miron Cozma, Constantin Cretan, Romeo Beja, Dorin Lois, Vasile Lupu and Ionel Ciontu), began before the High Court in Bucharest. The verdict was handed down on 28 September 2005: the High Court turned down Miron Cozma’s appeal and upheld the ten-year sentence handed down in 2003 for “undermining the authority of the State”; Constantin Cretan, Romeo Beja, Dorin Lois, Vasile Lupu and Ionel Ciontu were each sentenced to five years in prison. All the accused, with the exception of Romeo Beja (who had sought refuge abroad), were arrested and imprisoned in the hours that followed.
20. 1181. Miron Cozma, Constantin Cretan, Dorin Lois, Vasile Lupu and Ionel Ciontu have since been imprisoned in Romania, for many years still, in conditions in which their health and safety cannot be guaranteed.
21. 1182. The complainant organization adds that, between 1997 and 1998 and again between 1999 and 2005, Miron Cozma served part of an 18 year sentence. According to the laws in force in Romania, Cozma must serve another two years in prison. The other imprisoned miners (Constantin Cretan, Ionel Ciontu, Dorin Lois and Vasile Lupu) must serve five years in prison. According to the Romanian press, Romeo Beja, who was sentenced in absentia, is currently living abroad.
22. 1183. Miron Cozma is being held in a prison in Timisoara (western Romania). At the beginning of 2006, his request for parole (approved by all the courts) was turned down by an appeal court in a ruling considered by certain eminent legal experts to be illegal. Cozma can lodge a further application for parole in June 2006.
23. 1184. Ionel Ciontu, Dorin Lois and Vasile Lupu are being held in a high-security prison not far from Petrosani, in the Jiu Valley. Ciontu and Lois were, however, held for a long time in Bucharest, with a view to them testifying at an interminable inquiry into the events of 1990, in connection with which none of the trade union leaders have been charged. This prevented their families, whose financial situation was very difficult, from visiting them.
24. 1185. Constantin Cretan, a trade union leader from the mining basin of Oltania, is being held at a prison in Tirgu Jiu. He requested that his imprisonment be suspended for medical reasons (doctors have noted that he suffers from various cardiovascular conditions, as well as from injuries which occurred during an accident in prison when one of his Achilles tendons snapped, and serious glaucoma in one eye). Although the Tirgu Jiu Court first ruled that he could be released temporarily, it then declared itself to “have no competence to rule on such a case”. A further session of the Craiova Appeal Court will be held to decide his fate on 22 May 2006.
25. 1186. Finally, the complainant alleges that, on 24 March 2005, when Miron Cozma was still imprisoned in Bucharest, a former fellow inmate stated, on a programme shown on the OTV television channel, that an officer of the Independent Protection and Anti-corruption Service (SIPA) of the Ministry of Justice had asked him to “liquidate” Miron Cozma in exchange for certain personal benefits. This information was taken up by certain elements of the Romanian media, such as the Gazeta Valea Jiului (the Jiu Valley Gazette, 25 March 2005).
26. 1187. According to the complainant organization, the trade union leaders Miron Cozma, Constantin Cretan, Romeo Beja, Dorin Lois, Vasile Lupu and Ionel Ciontu were all arrested, sentenced and imprisoned because they were carrying out their mandates and their trade union activities, as had been decided by a collective vote of the Coordinating Council of the League of Miners’ Unions of Jiu Valley (LSMVJ) and the trade union organization of the Oltania basin miners. This constitutes a restriction of the free exercise of the right to organize, as guaranteed by Article 3 of Convention No. 87. In the same way, the withdrawal of civic and parental rights and the ban on holding trade union office in the case of Miron Cozma constitute a restriction of the rights guaranteed by Article 3.
27. 1188. The complainant organization emphasizes that, for almost ten years, the cases brought against the trade union leaders for having carried out the duties conferred upon them by their trade union members, as well as the deferments of legal procedures (deferments which amount to a form of intimidation) have had a negative effect on trade union activity, in particular in the mining industry, an economic sector which is essential to the Romanian economy.
28. 1189. In light of the above, the National Trade Union Confederation MERIDIAN requests the Romanian Government to take immediate steps to release these trade unionists and restore their rights in full.
29. 1190. In a communication dated 1 February 2007, the complainant alleges that on 11 January 2007 the family and colleagues of Ionel Ciontu, who had been in prison for the last 16 months, learned through the press of his death, following serious health problems, in the Jilava (Bucharest) prison hospital. The head of the Barcea Mare prison (in the Hunedoara region, 400 kilometres northwest of Bucharest) informed the Mediafax agency that Ciontu was transferred to the Jilava prison hospital by ambulance on 10 January 2007. Furthermore, Ciontu’s widow had indicated that the prison authorities would not disclose the results of the autopsy until 45 days elapsed.
30. 1191. One year ago, in the 19–25 January edition of the weekly publication Replica, Ionel Ciontu had maintained innocence and was quoted as saying: “I am a political prisoner. During the legal proceedings), the prosecutor Sasarman offered me four choices: ‘stab’ Cozma, quit the union, retire, or join the Democrat Party (Editor’s Note – the party of President Basescu). There was not a single statement against me in my file; even so, I was convicted.”
31. B. The Government’s reply
32. 1192. In a communication dated 16 October 2006, the Government recalls that the Romanian Constitution states that “the law establishes the conditions and limits of the exercise of this right, as well as the guarantees necessary with a view to maintaining services that are essential to society”. The exercise of the other rights and freedoms, including freedom of assembly, is still subject to the conditions set out by the Constitution and the law. Convention No. 87 states that “In exercising the rights provided for in this Convention workers and employers and their respective organizations, like other persons or organized collectivities, shall respect the law of the land.” In a democratic society, it is the authorities that ensure that the law is respected.
33. 1193. The Government recalls that Act No. 168/1999, concerning the settlement of labour disputes, regulates in detail the procedure and conditions under which a strike may be called. If those conditions are not met, the authorities can declare a strike illegal or suspend it. The Act also established that a declaration of strike action by the organizers which violates the conditions provided for by the Act constitutes a violation which may be sanctioned by between three and six months in prison or by a fine (unless it has the characteristics of an offence for which more severe penalties are applicable).
34. 1194. In accordance with the provisions of section 223 of Act No. 53/2003 (promulgating the new Labour Code) with subsequent amendments and additions: (1) elected trade union officers are protected by law against any form of condition, constraint or restriction regarding the exercise of their union mandate; (2) throughout the period of their mandate, as well as for two years after that mandate has come to an end, elected trade union officers cannot be dismissed for motives beyond their control, except in cases where the worker’s qualifications do not match the job description or for reasons connected with the fulfilment of the mandate conferred upon them by the employees of the enterprise; (3) other measures protecting trade union leaders are provided for under special laws and under the relevant employment contracts.
35. 1195. Section 10(2) of the Trade Unions Act (No. 54/2003) also prohibits the amendment or cancellation by employers of individual employment contracts of elected trade union officers and rank and file members for reasons connected with trade union activity.
36. 1196. The trade union leaders referred to by the complainant organization were found guilty by the High Court of the offence provided for under section 162 of the Penal Code: “Undermining the authority of the State”. The Government recalls that the body in question is the only one competent to establish the circumstances under which the alleged facts were committed and to carry out the necessary inquiries to elucidate the truth.
37. 1197. The Public Ministry (the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Appeal and Justice), which has competence in this matter, provided the Government with the following information: on 26 March 1997, through Instruction No. 57/P/Sp/1992 of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Appeal and Justice (the Penal and Criminal Prosecution Section), the accused, Miron Cozma, was brought to trial having been placed under preventive arrest for having committed offences under the following provisions of the Penal Code: sections 162 (undermining the authority of the State), 274, 275, 276 (violations of railway safety), 31 (inappropriate participation), and 279 (non-respect of regulations governing arms and munitions).
38. 1198. The document listing the charges refers to the fact that, from 24 to 28 September 1991, Miron Cozma was involved in fomenting acts of violence carried out by several groups of miners against Parliament, the Government and the Presidency. These acts had the potential to weaken the authority of the State. The miners forced railway employees to neglect their duties and to leave their places of work, actions which disrupted railway transport and led to the destruction of a number of safety installations. Moreover, in connection with these circumstances, Miron Cozma was found to be illegally in possession of a pistol and ammunition.
39. 1199. Under file No. 69/P/1999 of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Appeal and Justice (the Penal and Criminal Prosecution Section), the accused, Miron Cozma, was brought to trial for having committed offences under the following provisions of the Penal Code: sections 25, 271 (incitement to defy legal rulings), 321 (offences against public decency, breach of the peace and disturbance of public order) and 323 (conspiracy to commit offences). The accused Lois Dorin Mihai, Beja Romeo and Casapu Sterian were also brought to trial under the same instruction (in the case of Ionel Ciontu and Vasile Lupu et al. a decision was taken not to press criminal charges).
40. 1200. According to the Government, the accused were found guilty of having represented a group set up with the aim of committing offences, and Miron Cozma incited the miners and the trade union leaders of the LSMVJ to oppose, by violent means and threats, the execution of Ruling No. 486/1999 of the Supreme Court of Justice sentencing Mr Cozma to 18 months in prison for actions and demonstrations which seriously disturbed public order and caused a breach of the peace.
41. 1201. The two instructions were subjected to judicial review, and were upheld through the final decision of the Appeal Court.
42. 1202. During the 2004–06 period, the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Appeal and Justice (the Penal and Criminal Prosecution Section) issued only one press communiqué, dated 17 December 2004 (following the release of Miron Cozma), concerning his supervision in prison.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 1203. The Committee acknowledges that the events referred to in this case took place against a turbulent background.
2. 1204. The Committee notes that the complaint alleges that several trade union leaders were arrested on more than one occasion on charges of incitement to undermine the authority of the State and disturb public order, whereas they were in fact carrying out legitimate trade union activities linked to the defence of the workers and strikes within the context of mine closures. The trade union leaders in question were sentenced in September 2005, one to ten years in prison, the other five to five years in prison each.
3. 1205. The Committee takes note of the detailed complaint submitted by the National Trade Union Confederation MERIDIAN, which raises several questions concerning: (1) the obligation to negotiate in good faith and to meet existing undertakings; (2) the exercise of the right to strike; (3) the imprisonment of trade union leaders following judicial decisions; (4) the legal procedure followed; and (5) the failure to respect certain individual freedoms. The Committee notes the seriousness of the allegations made by the complainant organization and the latter’s allegation that the trade union leaders Miron Cozma, Constantin Cretan, Dorin Lois, Vasile Lupu and Ionel Ciontu are still in prison.
4. 1206. The Committee also takes note of the Government’s observations concerning the relevant legislative provisions, and notes that new laws and provisions have been adopted since the events of 1991 and 1999. The Government also describes the legal proceedings against the trade unionists referred to in the complaint. It lists the contents of the document produced in 1997 setting out charges in connection with the strike of 1991 (violation of several sections of the Penal Code; acts of violence by miners against Parliament with the potential to weaken the authority of the State, the Government and the Presidency; attempts to force railway employees to neglect their duties and to leave their places of work, actions which disrupted railway transport and led to the destruction of a number of safety installations; illegal possession of a pistol and ammunition on the part of Miron Cozma). The second document setting out charges against Cozma and others including Dorin Mihai Lois, Romeo Beja, Ionel Ciontu and Vasile Lupu, following the strike in 1999, referred to several violations of the Penal Code (incitement to defy judicial decisions, offences against public decency, breaches of the peace and disturbances of public order, conspiracy to commit offences).
5. 1207. The Committee considers that, where persons have been sentenced on grounds that have no relation to trade union rights, the matter falls outside its competence. It has, however, emphasized that the question whether a matter relates to criminal law or to the exercise of trade union rights should not be determined unilaterally by the government concerned. This is a question to be determined by the Committee after examining all the available information and, in particular, the text of the judgement. Moreover, the Committee has emphasized that when it requests a government to furnish judgements in judicial proceedings, such a request does not reflect in any way on the integrity or independence of the judiciary. The very essence of judicial procedure is that its results are known, and confidence in its impartiality rests on their being known [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, 2006, paras 114 and 113].
6. 1208. The Committee notes that, according to the allegations of the complainant organization, the various charges in this case are linked to the trade union activities of Miron Cozma, Constantin Cretan, Romeo Beja, Dorin Lois, Vasile Lupu and Ionel Ciontu, and to the strikes which took place in 1991 and 1999. These charges and the periods of imprisonment which followed were, in part, brought about because the trade unionists had exercised their right to strike. The Committee recalls, firstly, the fundamental importance it attaches to the right of workers to strike. According to the Committee, the right to strike should not be limited solely to industrial disputes that are likely to be resolved through the signing of a collective agreement; workers and their organizations should be able to express in a broader context, if necessary, their dissatisfaction as regards economic and social matters affecting their members’ interests [see Digest, op. cit., para. 531]. Moreover, the authorities should not resort to arrests and imprisonment in connection with the organization of or participation in a peaceful strike; such measures entail serious risks of abuse and are a grave threat to freedom of association [see Digest, op. cit., para. 671]. The Committee considers that the demands giving rise to the strikes in question (the strike of 1991 was linked to the non-payment of wages and that of 1999 to the closure of two factories) represent legitimate interests which a trade union organization should be free to defend. However, in order to be legal, a strike must be peaceful, and the Committee notes that the Government refers to the possession of weapons on the part of Miron Cozma and to the violent nature of the demonstrations. Although the Committee believes that allegations of criminal conduct should not be used to harass trade unionists by reason of their union membership or activities [see Digest, op. cit., para. 41], the Committee recalls that the principles of freedom of association do not protect abuses consisting of criminal acts while exercising the right to strike [see Digest, op. cit., para. 667].
7. 1209. The Committee is concerned at the fact that the Government has not provided any further explanation with regard to the events described in the complaint, limiting itself to quoting from the document listing charges relating to violations of the Penal Code which led to the current imprisonment of the trade union leaders referred to in the complaint. Moreover, the Committee notes the differences between the versions of events submitted by the complainant organization and the Government. The complainant organization insists that the arrest in February 1999 came in the wake of trade union demonstrations, while the Government states that the arrest was the result of offences committed in protest against the sentencing of Cozma to 18 years in prison. Furthermore, according to the complainant organization, the provisions on which the imprisonment of the trade union leaders was based were introduced into the Penal Code during the rule of the dictator Ceausescu and were kept in force after 1989 (a section on “incitement to undermine the authority of the State”, and a section on “non-respect of an employment contract”, prohibiting, de facto, the right to strike under the Ceausescu regime). Whatever the case may be, the Committee considers that, even if the arrests came in the wake of a demonstration against the 18 year sentence handed down in the case of Miron Cozma for his trade union activities, in particular, the miners’ march on Bucharest in 1991, such actions should be held to be legal unless they turn violent. While noting that the Government refers to offences against public decency, breaches of the peace and disturbances of public order, and conspiracy to commit offences, the Committee is particularly concerned by the severity of the ten- and five-year prison sentences.
8. 1210. Under these circumstances, the Committee considers that further information is required in order for it to understand the exact nature of the acts for which the trade unionists were imprisoned. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information concerning the charges relating to the events of 1991, in order to allow it to form a clear picture of events. In particular, the Committee requests the Government to provide copies of any rulings handed down concerning the case, and any rulings concerning the suspension of Constantin Cretan’s sentence on medical grounds, as well as any rulings concerning parole applications.
9. 1211. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned at the repeated arrests of Miron Cozma (in 1997, 1999, 2004 and 2005), as well as the arrests of the other trade union leaders, and, with regard to the strike of 1991, the belated initiation (six years later) of a case concerning an event which took place at a particularly troubled time in the country’s history. The Committee is also concerned at the fact that, having benefited from an amnesty covering the events of 1991, Miron Cozma was arrested immediately after his release, when his pardon was revoked, a decision that was later rejected by a court. Moreover, the Committee is concerned at the withdrawal of a certain number of his fundamental rights. The loss of fundamental rights, namely, the right to stay in or pass through Bucharest and Petrosani, the main mining town, for a period of 17 years, and the ban on standing for election to any trade union office (with special reference to his own trade union organization) and any political or public office, could be justified only with reference to criminal charges unconnected with trade union activities, and are serious enough to impugn the personal integrity of the individual concerned. The Committee recalls that it should be the policy of every government to ensure observance of human rights and especially of the right of all detained or accused persons to receive a fair trial at the earliest possible moment [Digest, op. cit., para. 100]. In addition, the Committee is particularly concerned by the complainant’s allegations concerning the four choices offered to Ionel Ciontu by the prosecutor Sasarman: to “stab” Cozma, quit the union, retire, or join the Democrat Party (the party of the President). The Committee requests the Government to initiate an investigation into the veracity of this allegation and to keep it informed in this regard. The Committee also requests the Government to open an independent inquiry in order to determine whether correct procedure has indeed been complied with regarding all the accused, and to review the prohibitions imposed upon Miron Cozma. If it is found that their sentencing has been based on anti-union grounds, the Committee requests the Government to take steps for their immediate release. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
10. 1212. Furthermore, the Committee notes that, according to the complainant organization’s allegations, efforts have been made on more than one occasion to resolve the labour disputes in the mining sector and to open a dialogue with the Government. These efforts have either failed, or the Government has not fully respected the agreements concluded. The Committee recalls that both employers and trade unions should negotiate in good faith and make every effort to come to an agreement, and that satisfactory labour relations depend primarily on the attitudes of the parties towards each other and on their mutual confidence [Digest, op. cit., para. 936]. Moreover, noting that agreements have apparently not always been respected, the Committee emphasizes the importance of the principle that agreements should be binding on the parties [see Digest, op. cit., para. 939]. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that these principles are respected in future.
11. 1213. The Committee notes that, according to the allegations, there was a plot to murder Miron Cozma, and recalls the general principle that the rights of employers’ and workers’ organizations can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of these organizations, and it is for governments to ensure that this principle is respected [Digest, op. cit., para. 44]. The Committee requests the Government to open an inquiry into the veracity of this allegation and to keep it informed of the outcome.
12. 1214. Finally, as concerns the death of Ionel Ciontu in the Jilava prison hospital, in Bucharest, the Committee notes that the results of his autopsy have yet to be disclosed and requests the Government to communicate the said results as soon as possible.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 1215. In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) Given the discrepancies between the allegations made by the complainant and the Government’s reply, the Committee requests the Government to provide further information concerning the charge relating to 1999, in order to allow it to form a clear picture of events. In particular, the Committee requests the Government to provide copies of any rulings handed down concerning the case, and any rulings concerning the suspension of Constantin Cretan’s sentence on medical grounds.
   • (b) As to allegations of irregularities of judicial procedure, the Committee requests the Government to open an independent inquiry in order to determine whether correct procedure was followed regarding all the accused, and to review the prohibitions imposed upon Miron Cozma. If it is found that the sentencing has been based on anti-union grounds, the Committee requests the Government to take steps for their immediate release. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
   • (c) As to the allegation concerning the four choices offered by the prosecutor to Ionel Ciontu, the Committee requests the Government to initiate an investigation into the veracity of this allegation and to keep it informed in this regard.
   • (d) The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the principles concerning the obligation to negotiate in good faith are respected in future.
   • (e) As to the allegation regarding a plot to murder Miron Cozma, the Committee requests the Government to open an inquiry into the veracity of this allegation and to keep it informed of the outcome.
   • (f) As to the death of Ionel Ciontu in the Jilava prison hospital, in Bucharest, the Committee requests the Government to communicate the results of his autopsy as soon as possible.