Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 396, October 2021

Case No 3313 (Russian Federation) - Complaint date: 26-JAN-18 - Follow-up

Allegations: The complainant alleges that the restrictive interpretation by the courts of the requirements of the Law on Trade Unions create obstacles to the free establishment and functioning of trade unions and that the application to trade unions of the legislative provisions regulating non-commercial organizations performing the functions of foreign agents further impedes the exercise of their rights

1. 529. The complaint is contained in communications from the Confederation of Labour of Russia (KTR) dated 26 January and 21 August 2018, 4 July 2019 and 18 November 2020. In communications dated respectively 29 January and 4 April 2018, the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and IndustriALL Global Union associated themselves with the complaint.
2. 530. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 20 August 2018 and 26 February 2021.
3. 531. The Russian Federation has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 532. In its communications dated 26 January and 21 August 2018, the KTR indicates that its complaint relates to the Saint Petersburg City Court judgment of 10 January 2018 to dissolve the Inter-regional Trade Union “Workers’ Association” (MPRA), a member of the KTR. By way of background, the KTR explains that the MPRA was established in 2006 by employees of the Ford Motor Company plant in Vsevolozhsk and of the AvtoVAZ plant in Tolyatti as the Inter-regional Union of Automotive Industry. It was registered by the Saint Petersburg central department of the Ministry of Justice on 1 February 2007. In January 2014, the MPRA was restructured and opened its membership to workers outside the automotive industry. As from 21 January 2014, the union operates under its current name. Since its establishment, the trade union’s mission has been to represent and protect social and labour rights and interests of its members and to promote solidarity by working with the Russian and international trade union movement to ensure the social and economic advancement of all workers.
2. 533. The complainant indicates that on 28 June 2017, following a complaint by a natural person, the Deputy Prosecutor of Saint Petersburg’s Krasnogvardeisky district decided to conduct an unscheduled audit of the MPRA to verify the trade union’s compliance with its legal obligations as a non-commercial organization and to that effect issued an order to the MPRA Chairperson, Mr Alexei Etmanov, to report to the Prosecutor’s office and to provide a file of documents for inspection. The following documents were requested: the MPRA statutes as amended; decisions of its governing bodies; results of audits carried out between 2012 and 2017; the union’s internal regulations; a list of activities conducted by the MPRA between 2012 and 2017; samples of printed and audio-visual materials published by the MPRA; information about the sources of the MPRA’s funding and other assets; original accounting records from 2012 to 2017; cash flow statements; information on the MPRA’s structural divisions and their leaders and documents pertaining to their governing bodies; a list of the MPRA members and applications for membership and resignation; documentary evidence of the MPRA’s use of internet resources; and various other documents. Mr Etmanov reported to the Prosecutor’s office within the period specified but presented only the MPRA statutes; registration documents; records of meetings of its congress; a copy of a lease; as well as internal regulations relating to the procedure for collecting membership fees, the Audit Commission and the provision of legal services. He refused to present any of the other requested documents, referring to the legislative provisions regulating the activities of trade unions and to international principles on freedom of association.
3. 534. On 21 July 2017, the Deputy Prosecutor ordered that administrative proceedings should be brought against Mr Etmanov pursuant to article 17.7 of the Code of Administrative Offences (deliberate failure to satisfy prosecutor’s legitimate demands). The order was sent to a justice of the peace of judicial district No. 83 in Saint Petersburg. Consequently, the Deputy Prosecutor suspended the audit of the MPRA on 24 July 2017. On 13 December 2017, a judge of a district court in Saint Petersburg dismissed the case brought against Mr Etmanov due to the expiry of the statute of limitations. On 23 April 2018, however, a justice of the peace of Saint Petersburg court district No. 83 recognized the refusal to provide the documents relating to the financial and economic activities of the MPRA in 2013 as unlawful and fined Mr Etmanov 2,000 Russian rubles. The complainant subsequently forwarded a decision dated 16 August 2018 taken by a judge of a Saint Petersburg district court confirming the magistrate’s decision.
4. 535. On 1 December 2017, the assistant Prosecutor sent to the district Prosecutor a report containing proposals to resume the audit and to draft a petition to dissolve the MPRA to be forwarded to the Saint Petersburg Prosecutor’s office and the Saint Petersburg City Court. Accordingly, on the same day, the MPRA was informed that the audit was resumed and that the Saint Petersburg Prosecutor’s office had petitioned the Saint Petersburg City Court to dissolve the MPRA in the interests of the general public.
5. 536. The KTR indicates that the Prosecutor’s arguments as set out in the petition can be split into three categories. Firstly, the MPRA committed a number of legislative violations when registering its statutes and amendments thereto: (i) the MPRA statutes do not specify the legal entity’s legal form (rather than specifying its legal status as “public organization”, they simply refer to the type of legal entity – “trade union”); (ii) the trade union’s official address listed in its statutes is incorrect (the statutes list the address of the elected Board, whereas the consolidated State register of legal entities lists that of the executive body); (iii) the statutes do not specify what categories of individuals or professional groups are eligible for trade union membership (because of the intersectoral nature of the MPRA’s activities, the statutes contain the wording “the trade union may comprise blue-collar workers, engineers and persons of other trades”); (iv) the statutes do not strictly define the geographic area in which MPRA operates (they list the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in which MPRA’s primary trade union organizations operate but state that the list is not exhaustive and may be amended upon a decision of the MPRA board to include new primary trade union organizations); and (v) the current version of the statutes states that the document was amended in March 2015, whereas the statues were amended in April 2015.
6. 537. Secondly, according to the Prosecutor, the MPRA has repeatedly conducted activities contrary to its statutory objectives, namely activities not aimed at representing or protecting the social and labour rights and interests of its members. The Prosecutor referred, in particular, to the publication on the MPRA website of a news story and an opinion piece, as well as to the organization by MPRA activists, on 30 November 2014, of a rally in support of a national campaign organized by the KTR for affordable medicine and a subsequent publication of a related news story on the MPRA website.
7. 538. Thirdly, according to the Prosecutor, the following MPRA activities can be compared to those of a non-commercial organization performing the functions of a foreign agent, without it being registered as such: (i) political activities in the form of posts on the MPRA social network group containing information on a campaign to amend article 134 of the Labour Code to ensure the regular indexing of wages to inflation as required by law and a link to the corresponding public petition; and (ii) receipt of foreign funding through transfer by IndustriALL Global Union (of which the MPRA is a member) of 175,000 rubles in 2015 and 188,350 rubles in 2016 to MPRA’s operating account for the purposes of conducting trade union training activities.
8. 539. According to the KTR, in court, the representatives of the Saint Petersburg Prosecutor’s office maintained that the above-mentioned violations were serious and irremediable and therefore provided grounds for the dissolution of the trade union.
9. 540. The KTR indicates that on 10 January 2018, the Saint Petersburg City Court ruled that it would grant the petition to dissolve the MPRA (a copy of the ruling provided). The court considered that the MPRA statutes did not specify what categories of individuals or professional groups were eligible for its membership and referred in this respect to paragraph 3.1 of the MPRA statutes, which states that, “anyone who has reached the age of 14, is engaged in a trade or profession, is temporarily not working, or retired, or is studying in a secondary or higher educational establishment may join the trade union”; and that “the trade union may comprise blue-collar workers, engineers and persons of other trades”. The KTR indicates that according to the court: “This violation can be classified as serious and irremediable. Furthermore, it cannot be remedied through a statutory amendment, since it concerns … a public association which, by admitting not only persons of various trades but also persons without a trade, including those temporarily not working – that is to say, persons not united by virtue of their professional activities by a common industrial or professional interest to represent and protect their social and labour rights and interests – is not in fact a trade union”. According to the KTR, the court thus considered that the following categories of persons are ineligible for trade union membership: those currently not working, retirees, students, and workers of various trades and professions.
10. 541. The KTR indicates that the court further observed that the MPRA’s statutes provided for the address of its collegial governing body, whereas, according to the court, the address of the union’s permanent executive body should have been indicated. The court did not consider this violation to be serious or irremediable. Furthermore, the court observed that the MPRA’s statutes did not define the geographic area in which the trade union operated. The court considered that an open list of constituent entities of the Russian Federation in which the trade union operated constituted a violation of the legislation. The court did not consider this violation to be serious or irremediable. In the opinion of the court, in order for the trade union to affiliate a primary trade union from an entity of the Russian Federation not listed in the statutes it must first amend its statutes. The court also noted that the MPRA provided inaccurate information when registering amendments to its statutes. The court considered that a clerical error whereby the text of the new version of the MPRA statutes stated that the statutory amendments had been made in March 2015, when in fact they had been made in April 2015, could be classified as a violation, albeit not serious or irremediable.
11. 542. Finally, the court considered that the MPRA had violated the legislation by failing to apply for inclusion in the register of non-commercial organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent, having received foreign funding and having been engaged in political activities. The court considered that some publications posted on the MPRA website and social media outlets were political in nature and fell outside the scope of the MPRA’s statutory activities as they were not aimed at protecting workers’ social or labour rights. The complainant indicates that the fact that IndustriALL Global Union has transferred funds to the MPRA for the training of trade union members and the fact that the MPRA had subsequently used those funds for their specified purpose provided the court with sufficient evidence that the MPRA had performed the functions of a foreign agent by receiving foreign funding. Accordingly, the court decided the MPRA had received monetary funds from an international trade union on the basis of special-purpose funding agreements dated 24 July 2015 and had subsequently spent those funds. The KTR points out that according to the court, the legislative provisions regulating the legal status of non-commercial organizations performing functions of a foreign agent are applicable to trade unions, as section 1, paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the Law on Non-Commercial Organizations contains an exhaustive list of exceptions to the scope of its application. The court pointed out that the Law on Trade Unions and Convention No. 87 regulate only the rights of trade unions, including the right to freedom of association and that the rights of trade unions are not absolute and may be restricted for the purposes of protecting the constitutional framework, public morals and health, the rights and legitimate interests of others, national defence and national security. Referring to the position of the Constitutional Court set forth in its Decision No. 10 of 14 April 2014, the court stated that the provisions on foreign agents are aimed at protecting public interests (ensuring that all interested parties are informed about the involvement of foreign entities in the monetary or material support of any non-commercial organization engaged in political activities), and therefore serve as a legitimate basis for the restriction of freedom of association and can be applied to trade unions. The court did not (sic) consider this violation to be serious or irremediable. The Saint Petersburg City Court concluded that trade unions have a right to engage in political activities in the socio-economic sphere; however, if a trade union exercises that right while at the same time receiving monetary funds from a foreign entity, it must register as a non-commercial organization performing the functions of a foreign agent.
12. 543. The KTR indicates that while the court accepted the position of the MPRA on two points, it did not affect the outcome of the case. While the Prosecutor’s office maintained that trade unions registered as legal entities were required to specify in their name – or at least in the text of their statutes – their legal form as “public organization”, the court concluded that according to the legislation in force, trade unions were not required to do so and must simply specify the type of legal entity as “trade union”. Moreover, while the Prosecutor’s office argued that the MPRA activities in support of amendments to article 134 of the Labour Code regulating the indexing of wage were political and were not covered by its statutes, the court stated that the MPRA activities aimed at developing legislation in the socio-economic sphere (including its support of the amendments to article 134 of the Labour Code) were legal and consistent with the trade union’s statutory goals.
13. 544. The KTR alleges that companies at which MPRA primary trade union organizations operated immediately began implementing the court judgment despite the fact that it had not officially entered into force. For example, the functions of the Chairperson of the Ford Motor Company workers’ committee of the MPRA’s primary trade union organization in Saint Petersburg and Leningrad Province were restricted. The complainant explains that as per the requirements of article 373 of the Labour Code, the employer was obliged to obtain consent from the MPRA before dismissing the Chairperson. On 17 May 2017, the MPRA refused to grant such consent. On 25 May 2017, the company appealed to the Krasnogvardeisky District Court in Saint Petersburg to declare that such refusal to consent to the dismissal of a member of a primary trade union organization was unreasonable. On 22 January 2018 the case was reviewed in court. The decision of the Saint Petersburg City Court to dissolve the MPRA was used by the company representatives as evidence that MPRA’s refusal to consent to the above-mentioned dismissal was unreasonable, even though that decision had not officially entered into force.
14. 545. The KTR informs that on 22 May 2018, the administrative law judges of the Supreme Court issued an appeal ruling on the complaint filed by the MPRA, annulling the 10 January 2018 decision of the Saint Petersburg City Court (a copy of the ruling provided). The Supreme Court considered that there were no grounds to dissolve the MPRA as the violations of the laws that had occurred were not gross or irreparable.
15. 546. The KTR considers nevertheless that the conclusions of the Supreme Court recognizing a number of the provisions of the MPRA statutes to be in violation of the legislation in force create obstacles not only for the MPRA’s work but also to the free establishment of trade unions and their activities in the country. The KTR indicates in this respect that the Supreme Court considered that paragraph 3.1 of the MPRA’s statutes, which opens trade union membership to those temporarily not working, pensioners, students and workers in different specialized professions, contravenes the Law on Trade Unions of 12 January 1996. Thus, in the complainant’s view, the Supreme Court interprets the provisions of the Law on Trade Union as restricting the right of the trade union to define independently the categories of persons that may obtain trade union membership.
16. 547. Furthermore, the KTR indicates that the Supreme Court and the Saint Petersburg City Court considered that the statutes of the trade union which has interregional status may not specify an open list of geographical subjects, on the territory of which a trade union conducts its activities, and must list all of the subjects of the Russian Federation where a trade union organization exists. According to the KTR, such an approach would mean that where a trade union organization is created in another subject of the Russian Federation, amendments to the statutes are required, thereby creating additional complications for the trade union in broadening its membership.
17. 548. The KTR indicates that the Supreme Court further considered the publication on the MPRA website of two articles and agreed with the conclusions of the Saint Petersburg City Court that the said publications contravened the union statutes.
18. 549. The KTR further points out that the Supreme Court and the Saint Petersburg City Court considered that article 2(6) of the Law on Non-Commercial Organizations of 12 January 1996 applied to trade unions. The MPRA considers that the rule on non-commercial organizations acting as foreign agents contained in that Law should not apply to trade unions and points out that employers’ organizations are exempted therefrom and stresses in this respect that equal requirements should be applied to both trade unions and employers’ associations. The KTR indicates that the Supreme Court did not concur with the argument of the MPRA in this regard and considered that the status of a foreign agent did not create obstacles to trade unions’ international cooperation and the conduct of political activities. At the same time, the Supreme Court did not concur with the Saint Petersburg City Court concerning the fact that the failure of the MPRA to apply for entry in the register of non-commercial organizations acting as foreign agents constituted a gross violation and should lead to the MPRA being dissolved.
19. 550. The Supreme Court annulled the decision to dissolve the MPRA simply because it did not consider all of the above-mentioned grounds to be gross and irreparable violations, as required for a dissolution decision to be taken.
20. 551. The KTR alleges that as a result, the Supreme Court confirmed the obligation imposed on trade unions to apply for the status of a foreign agent in cases where the trade union receives funds from foreign sources. The KTR provides examples of such cases of the receipt of financial resources, which can emanate from its members who are foreign citizens, or those who work abroad, from other trade unions, including international trade unions, and from employers that are foreign legal persons. The KTR considers that the establishment of different rules for workers’ and employers’ organizations creates unequal conditions for the conduct of their respective activities.
21. 552. The KTR indicates that it has raised this issue in the Russian Tripartite Commission for the regulation of social and labour issues (RTK) and proposed to consider excluding trade unions and their associations from the scope of application of the rules on non-commercial organizations acting as a foreign agent (i.e. amending article 1(7) of the Law on Non-Commercial Organizations). On 22 March 2018, this issue was examined at the meeting of an RTK working group. As a result of the meeting, it was proposed that the Ministry of Labour will enhance the activities of the working group (set up by Order No. 676 of the Ministry of Labour of 18 November 2013 to analyse the recommendations of the ILO Governing Body (Cases Nos 2758, 2216 and 2251) and to develop proposals to consolidate the current rules and regulations and law-enforcement procedures), hold a meeting of the working group by 15 May 2018 and report on the results to the RTK secretariat. The KTR alleges that while the first meeting of RTK took place on 12 May 2018, to date no measures have been taken by the Ministry of Labour to amend the legislative provisions governing the application to trade unions of the status of an organization acting as a foreign agent.
22. 553. By its communication dated 4 July 2019, the KTR, referring to a negotiation process with the Government on the issues raised in the complaint, requested to postpone the consideration of this case.
23. 554. By a communication dated 18 November 2020, the KTR requested to resume the examination of the case in view of the absence of any action from the authorities with regard to the issues raised in this complaint and, in particular, as concerns the status of foreign agents for which trade unions must apply should they receive foreign funds. The KTR reiterates, in particular, that any trade union that has received foreign funding (for example, membership fees from foreign workers, material assistance from an international trade union association, funds from an employer who is a foreign company, etc.) can be recognized as an organization performing functions of a foreign agent if the regulatory authorities consider that the activities of the trade union are to some extent political in nature. The KTR alleges that the recognition of a trade union as an organization performing the functions of a foreign agent will entail for the trade union not only the need to indicate in all information materials that the trade union has such a status but also the following other consequences: inclusion of the trade union in the public register as an organization performing the functions of a foreign agent; quarterly submission by the trade union to the supervisory authorities of reports regarding the purposes on which funds received from foreign sources have been spent; submission, every six months, of reports on the activities and composition of the governing bodies of the trade union; and mandatory annual financial trade union audit to be submitted to the authorities. The KTR also points out that the term “foreign agent” is perceived by the majority of the Russian population as the same as the term “foreign spy”.
24. 555. The KTR also alleges that a violation of the legislation, in particular, untimely registration of a non-profit organization as an organization performing the functions of a foreign agent, may entail, pursuant to section 19.34 of the Code of Administrative Offenses the imposition of an administrative fine on the organization in the amount of up to 500,000 rubles (about €5,500), as well as the imposition of a fine on the head of the organization in the amount of up to 300,000 rubles (about €3,300). According to the KTR, such legislative regulation can lead to unjustified interference of state bodies in the internal affairs of trade unions. The complainant points out that, pursuant to paragraph 7 of section 1 of the Law on Non-Commercial Organizations, employers’ associations continue to be excluded from the obligation to be registered as organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent, which means that the state has created unequal conditions for trade unions and employers’ associations activities.
25. 556. The KTR further indicates that the Government has submitted to the State Duma Draft Law No. 1052523-7, which provides for the following additional obligations to be imposed on organizations recognized as foreign agents: obligation to report on ongoing programmes and provisions of other documents that are the basis for holding events. The Law would also provide additional grounds for the liquidation of a non-profit organization performing the functions of a foreign agent.
26. 557. In addition, the KTR expresses its concern that the Prosecutor’s office may again conduct an audit of the MPRA, including on the issue of compliance with the legislation on organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent. These concerns are based on a series of publications that recently appeared on the internet containing negative information and defamatory assessments of the MPRA’s activities. The KTR refers, in particular, to a publication by the Russian news agency, “Federal News Agency”, in November 2020 providing information on the Prosecutor’s investigation of the MPRA, as a result of which a decision was made in 2018 to liquidate the MPRA. At the same time, a negative assessment of the decision of the Supreme Court, which annulled the decision of the lower court to liquidate the MPRA, was given as it allowed the MPRA to continue its activities. The publication also mentions that in 2009, several trade union flyers of the MPRA were recognized as extremist materials, and that some of the public organizations supporting the MPRA were liquidated in court. The KTR and the MPRA believe that the reports in the media may be followed by another investigation.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 558. In its communications dated 20 August 2018 and 26 February 2021, the Government provides the following information. Regarding the dissolution of the MPRA ordered by the Saint Petersburg City Court, the Government refers to the grounds stated in the decision for the dissolution: the trade union statutes did not comply with legislative requirements, the trade union carried out activities contravening its statutes, in particular political activities, and also conducted itself as a foreign agent without informing the competent authority. This decision was appealed and examined by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court established that the statutes did not contain any indication of a specific type of activity, or industrial or professional interests, uniting the members of the trade union and expressed the opinion that non-compliance of the provisions of the trade union statutes with the legislation may not be considered a gross or irreparable violation, the said provisions having been permitted when the trade union was registered.
2. 559. The Government explains that as the law does not establish a list of gross violations, it is for the court to assess whether a violation of the law committed by a citizens’ association is a gross violation and leads to the association being dissolved or its activities being prohibited. Gross violations by citizens’ associations of the Constitution, federal constitutional laws, federal laws or other laws and regulations may include acts aimed at denying the fundamental democratic principles, rights or freedoms recognized by the Constitution, the generally recognized principles and standards of international law, international agreements of the Russian Federation, federal laws and other laws and regulations, or at promoting war or inciting national, racial or religious hatred, and provoking discrimination, hostility or violence. A violation which creates a real threat or causes harm to the life or health of citizens, the environment, public order and safety, property, the lawful economic interests of natural and/or legal persons, society and the State also constitutes a gross violation. Gross violations are those, which cannot be lawfully remedied, for example a situation where a decision cannot be taken in accordance with the procedure established by founding documents.
3. 560. The Government indicates that the Supreme Court acknowledged the ruling of the court of the first instance as being correct concerning the non-compliance of certain provisions of the statutes with the legislation in force, but considered the decision that this constituted gross and irreparable violations to be erroneous.
4. 561. As to the fact that the trade union acted as a foreign agent following receipt of money from a foreign source – IndustriALL Global Union (Switzerland) – the Supreme Court based its decision on the fact that the failure of a non-commercial organization to register as foreign agent cannot be considered a gross violation leading to the organization being dissolved, as the non-compliance with the obligation in question does not in itself create a real threat to public order or safety.
5. 562. As regards activities contravening the trade union statutes, the court noted that according to the MPRA’s statutes, the aims of its activities are the protection of the social and labour rights and interests of its members. One of the grounds for dissolution was the publication on the MPRA’s website of three articles containing criticism of the actions of the authorities to institute a “PLATO” system, and also a petition in support of the campaign to amend article 134 of the Labour Code. The Supreme Court noted that, in accordance with the legislation in force, trade unions have the right to make proposals concerning the adoption of laws and regulations on social and labour issues.
6. 563. With regard to the status of a foreign agent for which trade unions must apply in certain circumstances, the Government refers at the outset to the ease with which a trade union may be founded in the Russian Federation; the guarantees of independence, unaccountability and uncontrollability afforded to them; and the wide-reaching authority of trade unions. It indicates, in particular, that a trade union may be founded by three founders and that there is no requirement for state registration, although a trade union may choose to register through the procedure of notification. The Government indicates that there are numerous rights and guarantees afforded to trade unions, including: independence from, unaccountability to and uncontrollability by, state bodies and employers; protection against wrongful dismissal at the employer’s initiative afforded to trade union members and leaders; an obligation on employers to create conditions for the activities of an elected body of a primary trade union organization, including the provision of appropriate premises, office equipment, means of communication, etc.; the priority right to represent workers’ interests in social partnerships at the local level (at the level of individual employers); the exclusive right to represent workers’ interests at higher levels (regional, sectoral, etc.), including through the RTK, which is involved in the elaboration of legislation; the right to monitor compliance with labour legislation and other laws and regulations containing labour law norms as well as with collective agreements in force; guarantees for the activities of trade union labour inspectors; and the right to strike (article 409 of the Labour Code).
7. 564. The Government explains that the concept of a foreign agent is set out in article 2(6) of the Federal Law of 12 January 1996 on Non-Commercial Organizations. To be considered as a foreign agent, a non-commercial organization must receive monetary funds and other assets from foreign states, foreign state bodies, international and foreign organizations, foreign individuals, stateless persons, or persons acting on behalf of those persons or entities, and/or from Russian legal entities receiving monetary funds or other assets from the aforementioned sources. It must simultaneously be engaged in political activity on the territory of the Russian Federation. The legislation also sets out the following criteria for identifying a non-commercial organization’s activity as political: activity in the area of state formation, the protection of the constitutional order and federal structure, the protection of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, the preservation of the rule of law, public order and state and public security, national defence, foreign policy, the socio-economic and national development of the Russian Federation, the development of the political system, the activities of state and local authorities, or the legislative regulation of human and civil rights and freedoms with the intention of influencing the development and implementation of public policy or the establishment, decisions or activities of state and local authorities.
8. 565. According to the Government, the Law on Non-Commercial Organizations identifies the following as forms of engagement in political activity:
   • participating in the organization and holding of public events in the form of assemblies, rallies, demonstrations, marches or pickets or various combinations thereof, or public debates, discussions or presentations;
   • publicly dealing with state or local authorities or their officials, and any other acts that may influence the activities of those authorities, including amendments to or the adoption or repeal of an act or other law or regulation;
   • publicizing, including through modern information technology, opinions on state authorities’ decisions or policies;
   • involving members of the public, including minors, in such activities;
   • financing such activities.
9. 566. The Government points out that trade unions have the right to engage in all of the above-mentioned forms of political activities in accordance with the Law on Trade Unions. Trade unions are the largest non-profit organizations in the country and count over 21 million people among their ranks (the population totals 146.7 million, of which 70.4 million are employed). The trade union side of the RTK includes representatives of the KTR. Trade unions in the Russian Federation are thus fully involved in political activities.
10. 567. With regard to the KTR allegation of unequal conditions created for the activities of trade unions and employers’ associations, as the latter are excluded from the legislation regulating activities of non-commercial organizations performing functions of a foreign agent, the Government indicates that equality of the parties is defined as one of the fundamental principles of social partnership under article 24 of the Labour Code. The Law on Trade Unions and the Law on Employers’ Associations of 27 November 2002 impose almost identical norms for both social partners. However, trade unions, which are based on the membership of individuals, are community organizations, whereas employers’ associations are not. Thus, in comparison with employers’ associations, trade unions have additional rights to organize and hold public events in the form of assemblies, rallies, demonstrations, marches or pickets or various combinations thereof. The organization and holding of the above-mentioned events are among the most effective forms of political activity that trade unions, including the KTR, can perform. The potential for foreign financing of trade unions, which are the largest community organizations in the country, hold wide-reaching authority and play a real part in national political life, including through mass events, leads to the natural decision of imposing certain limitations on trade unions’ uncontrollability by and unaccountability to the state authorities. Moreover, trade union members and the public are fully entitled to know about foreign financing of community organizations that play a key role in civil society.
11. 568. With regard to the KTR allegation that any trade union receiving membership fees from foreign sources, material support from an international trade union association, or funds from an employer that is a foreign enterprise may be recognized as a foreign agent, the Government indicates that trade unions have the legal right to define their own activities independently. This includes defining their sources of financing and how to spend their income. Trade unions define their own joining and membership fees. Moreover, the Ministry of Labour has no information on any mass membership of foreign nationals in Russian trade unions. The transfer of funds from an employer to a trade union referred to by the KTR assumes that an employer may allocate funds to a primary trade union organization for cultural and physical education and health activities in instances stipulated by the collective agreement; and that the wages of the primary trade union organization’s elected body leader are paid for by the employer in amounts established under the collective agreement. The Government points out that such sources of funding are not legislatively imposed; while possible they are not obligatory. On the issue of the material support of trade unions by international trade union associations, it must be noted that trade unions have the right to independently define whether they receive this kind of support and, if so, the legal mechanisms through which they receive it.
12. 569. Regarding the KTR’s allegation that the term “foreign agent” is understood by the majority of the Russian population to be synonymous with “foreign spy”, the Government indicates that it is not engaged in fostering an association between the terms “foreign agent” and “foreign spy” in the public consciousness. The term “foreign agent” has been used for decades in the legislation of countries presented as archetypes of democratic societies. It must also be noted that the Constitutional Court in its resolution No. 10-P of 8 April 2014 stated that the institution of non-profit organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent does not necessarily mean that all non-commercial organizations are unfavourably regarded by the Government, nor is it designed to foster a negative attitude to political activities undertaken by non-commercial organizations, and, as a result, it cannot be interpreted as an expression of distrust or a wish to discredit non-commercial organizations or their goals.
13. 570. Regarding the KTR’s allegation that the MPRA is at risk of being investigated by the Prosecutor’s office following a series of online publications about it in the Federal News Agency, the Government indicates that the Federal News Agency is not the official information channel of the Prosecutor’s Office, the Government, or any other state body. It is therefore not possible to comment on its publications.
14. 571. In the light of the above, the Government considers that the KTR’s complaint is unfounded.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 572. The Committee notes that the allegations in this case emanate from the 10 January 2018 decision of the Saint Petersburg City Court to liquidate the MPRA, the complainant’s affiliate. The Committee notes that the court ordered the dissolution of the union as it concluded there was a violation of the provisions of the Law on Trade Unions, the Law on Non-Commercial Organizations and the MPRA’s statutes. As concerns the violation of the Law on Trade Unions, the Committee notes the court’s reasoning:
   • According to section 2, paragraph 1, of the Law on Trade Unions, a trade union is a voluntary public association of citizens united by virtue of their professional activities by common industrial or professional interests, created for the purposes of representing and protecting its members’ social and labour rights and interests. …
   • The trade union’s statutes should include: the trade union’s official name, aims and objectives; the categories of individuals or professional groups eligible for membership; the territory within which the trade union operates; and the address of the trade union body (section 7, paragraph 2).
   • Contrary to the requirements of section 2, paragraph 1, and section 7, paragraph 2, of the Law on Trade Unions, the statutes of the MPRA do not specify the categories of individuals or professional groups eligible for membership.
   • On the contrary, paragraph 3.1 [of the statutes] states that anyone who has reached the age of 14, is engaged in a trade or profession, is temporarily unemployed or retired or is studying at a secondary or higher educational establishment may join the trade union; the trade union may comprise blue-collar workers, engineers and persons of other trades. Therefore, since the list is not restrictive, it cannot be said to define the specific categories of individuals or professional groups eligible for membership of the trade union. …
   • This violation can be classified as serious and irremediable. Furthermore, it cannot be remedied through a statutory amendment, since it concerns the organization by the respondent of a public association which, by admitting not only persons of various trades but also persons without a trade, including those not currently engaged in work – that is to say, persons not united by virtue of their professional activities by a common industrial or professional interest to represent and protect their social and labour rights and interests – is not in fact a trade union. …
   • As indicated above, the trade union’s statutes must specify the address of the trade union body [… which] is the trade union’ permanent executive body. … It should be noted that the statutes of the MPRA provide for the establishment of the following trade union bodies in addition to the Chairperson and the Executive Committee: a Congress, a Board and an Audit Commission, each of which, given the territory in which the trade union operates, may exercise their powers in any of the 42 constituent entities of the Russian Federation. An indication of the location of such bodies does not provide reliable information about the location of the trade union. [… paragraph 1.7 of the statutes refers to the areas the trade union operates]. It also states that the above-mentioned list is not exhaustive and may be amended upon the decision of the Board to admit new primary trade union organizations to the trade union.
   • Based on the fact that the trade union may operate not only in the listed areas but also in other constituent entities of the Russian Federation, it can be concluded that the statutes do not define the territory in which the trade union operates. …
   • Consequently, the MPRA has violated the requirements under the Law on Trade Unions relating to the content of trade union statutes, in particular the requirement to specify the territory within which the trade union operates and the address of the trade union body.
2. 573. The Committee notes that section 2, paragraph 6 of the Law on Non-Commercial Organizations, the question of application of which to trade union organizations is the central issue of the present complaint, and which the court of first instance examined in its judgment, reads as follow:
   • A non-commercial organization performing the functions of a foreign agent is understood to mean a Russian non-commercial organization that receives monetary funding and other property from foreign States or State authorities, international or foreign organizations, foreign citizens, stateless persons or persons authorized by them and/or Russian legal entities that receive monetary funding and other property from the above-mentioned sources … and that participates in political activities within the Russian Federation, including in the interests of those foreign sources.
     • A non-commercial organization (with the exception of political parties) is understood to mean a non-commercial organization participating in activities within the Russian Federation if, regardless of its statutory goals and objectives, it operates in the area of: state-building; protecting the constitutional framework and federal structure of the Russian Federation; protecting the sovereignty and ensuring the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation; ensuring law and order, State and public security, national defence, foreign policy and the socio-economic and national development of the Russian Federation, shaping the political system and the activities of State and local authorities; or regulating human and civil rights and freedoms in order to influence the design and implementation of State policy, the establishment of State and local authorities or the decisions and actions of those authorities.
     • Such activities may take the following forms:
   • participating in the organization and holding of public events in the form of meetings, rallies, demonstrations, marches, pickets or various combinations of the above, or in the organization and holding of public debates, discussions or presentations;
   • participating in activities aimed at producing a specific outcome during an election or referendum, in the monitoring of an election or referendum, in the establishment of election or referendum committees or in the activities of political parties;
   • issuing public appeals to State bodies, local authorities and their appointed officials, and other activities that influence the activities of such bodies, including those aimed at the adoption, amendment or abolition of laws and other legislative instruments;
   • disseminating opinions on the decisions or policies of State bodies, including with the use of modern information technology;
   • shaping socio-political views and beliefs, including by conducting public opinion polls and publishing their results or by conducting other sociological studies;
   • involving other citizens, including minors, in the above-mentioned activities;
   • financing the above-mentioned activities.
   • Political activities do not include activities carried out in the fields of science, culture, art, health care, disease prevention and the protection of public health, social services, social assistance and protection, maternal and child welfare, social support for persons with disabilities, the promotion of healthy lifestyles, fitness and sport, the protection of plant and animal life and charitable activities.
3. 574. The Committee observes that the court took note of the fact that in 2015 and 2016, the MPRA received and subsequently spent monetary funding originating from a foreign source, IndustriALL Global Union (Switzerland), on the basis of special-purpose funding agreements. The court then proceeded to examine the activities of the MPRA, in particular, various publications on its website and social media accounts:
   • An inspection of the website mpra.su on 21 July 2017 established that two publications entitled “Platon is no friend of ours” and “Import substitution is becoming a farce” had been posted on the site in 2015, and an inspection of the “MPRA Trade Union” online community on the social network VKontakte indicated that a publication urging readers to support a campaign to amend section 134 of the Russian Labour Code, with an attached hyperlink to the corresponding petition, had been posted in 2016.
   • In the article entitled “Platon is no friend of ours”, the trade union supports mass trucker protests against the introduction of a new road tax.
   • The publication entitled “Import substitution is becoming a farce” criticizes a policy implemented by the State authorities, with a view to influencing that policy by shaping public opinions and sparking outcry. …
   • The content of the publication [in relation to the campaign to amend section 134 of the Labour Code] is politically motivated and aims to influence the design and implementation of State policy in the areas of national socio-economic development, the activities of State authorities and the legislative regulation of civil and human rights and freedoms.
   • Since the dissemination, including via information technology, of opinions relating to the decisions and policies of State bodies and activities aimed at the adoption, amendment or abolition of laws and regulations and the shaping of socio-political views and beliefs represent forms of political activity, the online posting of the above-mentioned publications by the trade union certainly meets the criteria set out in section 2, paragraph 6, of the Law on Non-Commercial Organizations and is thus deemed by the court to constitute political activity.
   • In accordance with section 32, paragraph 7, subparagraph 2, of the Law on Non-Commercial Organizations and section 29, part 6, of the Law on Public Associations, a non-commercial organization or public association that intends to receive monetary funds and other property from foreign sources and participate in political activities within the Russian Federation having officially registered as a legal entity must immediately apply to the authorized body for inclusion in the register of non-commercial organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent.
4. 575. The Committee notes that the court dismissed the MPRA’s argument that the legislation governing the classification of non-commercial organizations as foreign agents is not applicable to trade unions by reason of the obligations under Convention No. 87 and the relevant national legislation. The court considered that the MPRA’s line of argument had no national or international legal basis. With regard to the latter, it considered, in particular, that the rights afforded by Article 5 of Convention No. 87 were not absolute. It stated, moreover, that “legislative provisions relating to non-commercial organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent do not preclude international cooperation, including the receipt of monetary funds from foreign sources or the implementation of political activities, but simply aim to identify a public association as a specific type of legal entity and inform all interested parties accordingly”. The court stated that the Law on Non-Commercial Organizations was applicable to all non-commercial organizations established within the Russian Federation, unless explicitly excluded by the relevant legislative provisions, and pointed out that trade unions were not listed among the exclusions. The court concluded that the non-compliance by the MPRA with the requirement of the Law on Non-Commercial Organizations to be included in the register of organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent constituted a serious violation of the legislation.
5. 576. Regarding the Prosecutor’s claim that the dissemination of the above-mentioned publications ran counter to the MPRA’s statutory objectives, the court concluded:
   • … the trade union’s activities in support of the initiative to amend section 134 of the Labour Code may be deemed statutory and in line with legislation on trade unions.
   • Meanwhile, the posting of the articles entitled “Platon is no friend of ours” and “Import substitution is becoming a farce” was aimed not at representing or protecting any of the social and labour rights of workers, as the respondent claimed, but at shaping public opinion relating to State policy and influencing that policy in other areas, which is incompatible with the activities of trade unions as defined by law and the statutes of the MPRA.
6. 577. The Committee notes that the union appealed this decision and that on 22 May 2018, the Supreme Court overturned it and issued a new ruling in the case. The Committee notes, in particular, that regarding the conformity of the MPRA’s statutes with the Law on Trade Unions, the Supreme Court, while agreeing with the court of first instance’s conclusion that the specific provisions of the MPRA statutes did not comply with that Law, considered the lower court’s position that the MPRA committed gross and irremediable breaches of the law to be erroneous. The Supreme Court pointed out in this regard that the MPRA statutes’ non-compliance with the Law on Trade Unions can be remedied by lawful means, namely, by amending them.
7. 578. The Committee further notes that the Supreme Court agreed with the court of first instance’s assertion that section 1 of the Law on Non-Commercial Organizations, which lists the organizations and institutions exempt from section 2, paragraph 6 of the said Law, does not mention trade unions, and that the legislation in question does not create obstacles to international cooperation, including the receipt of funds from foreign sources, or to the carrying out of political activities. At the same time, the Supreme Court considered “that the breach resulting from the failure of a non-commercial organization performing the functions of a foreign agent cannot be viewed as gross breach warranting the liquidation of the organization”.
8. 579. As regards the MPRA’s activities (two publications), which the court of first instances found to be contrary to the union statutes, the Committee notes that the Supreme Court considered that the breach was not systematic in nature.
9. 580. The Committee notes that while there appears to have been attempts to resolve the issues pending in this case at the level of the RTK, they did not lead to the results aspired by the complainant. The Committee notes that in its communication dated 18 November 2020, the KTR requested the Committee to resume the examination of the case.
10. 581. The Committee will therefore proceed to examine the following sets of allegations advanced by the complainant following the judicial decisions: (1) restrictive interpretation by the courts of the requirements of the Law on Trade Unions relating to trade union membership and the indication in trade union statutes of the territory within which it shall operate create obstacles to the free establishment and functioning of trade unions; and (2) the application to trade unions of the legislative provisions regulating non-commercial organizations performing functions of a foreign agent further impedes the rights of trade unions. The Committee also notes from the judicial decisions that two articles criticizing the State’s policies published by the MPRA were considered to be incompatible with the trade union activities as defined by the law and the statutes of the MPRA. The Committee recalls in this respect that in Case No. 2758 still pending before the Committee, it noted with grave concern that the MPRA’s leaflets containing such slogans as “let those who caused the crisis pay for it”, “fight substandard employment”, and “we demand our night shift pay” were declared to be extremist material by a local court, which considered that the trade union material in question intended to incite social divisions and hostility. The Committee considered on that occasion that placing leaflets containing such or similar slogans on the list of extremist literature impeded considerably the right of trade unions to express their views and is an unacceptable restriction on trade union activities and, as such, a grave violation of freedom of association. The Committee recalled in this respect that the right to express opinions, including those criticizing the Government’s economic and social policy, was one of the essential elements of the rights of occupational organizations. The Committee urged the Government to take the necessary measures without delay in order to remove the trade union leaflets from the list of extremist literature and to ensure that this did not happen again [see para. 1399, Report No. 365, November 2012]. The Committee last examined Case No. 2758 in June 2015 and on that occasion deeply regretted that, despite its persistent requests, the Government took no measures to ensure that the trade union leaflets in question were removed from the federal list of extremist literature [para. 69, Report No. 375]. The Committee regrets to note that the MPRA’s publications criticizing the State’s policy were declared as being contrary to the law and the union’s statutes and recalls in this respect that the right to express opinions through the press or otherwise is an essential aspect of trade union rights and the full exercise of trade union rights calls for a free flow of information, opinions and ideas within the limits of propriety and non-violence [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, para 241]. It further recalls that freedom of expression which should be enjoyed by trade unions and their leaders should also be guaranteed when they wish to criticize the government’s economic and social policy [see Compilation, para. 244]. The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure that the right of trade unions to express opinions, including those criticizing the Government’s economic and social policies is duly protected in law and in practice. It requests the Government to indicate all steps taken to that end.
11. 582. The Committee recalls that in Case No. 2758, which concerned allegations of numerous violations of trade union rights, including violations of freedom of opinion and expression, the Government’s interference in trade union matters and refusal by the State authorities to register trade unions, it noted the Proposals of April 2012 for addressing the issues of the application of freedom of association in legislation and practice, which the social partners and the Government have agreed to examine in the framework of the RTK. The Committee noted in particular that the Proposals referred to legislative measures, training activities, adoption of guidelines and explanatory notes as means of addressing the issues of freedom of association in law and in practice and expected that the Proposals would be discussed by the RTK without delay [see Report No. 365, paras 1397 and 1398]. The Committee observes that the issues in this case, as examined below, are closely linked to the issues covered by the Proposals and regrets that these have not been yet resolved, despite a working group being set up in the framework of the RTK, as per the complainant’s indication.
12. 583. In this connection and with reference to the case of the MPRA Chairperson, fined for the failure to submit to the Prosecutor certain trade union documents, the Committee notes that point 4.1. of the Proposals calls for the establishment in the legislation of a list of cases in which trade unions may be required to provide information and documents, and establishment of the list of documents which may be required from unions by various state authorities responsible for monitoring trade union activities.
13. 584. The Committee recalls that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, including without discrimination in regard to occupation, should have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing [see Compilation, para 332]. It further recalls that the right to decide whether or not a trade union should represent retired workers for the defence of their specific interests is a question pertaining to the internal autonomy of all trade unions [see Compilation, para. 413] and as a general rule, qualification for membership in trade unions should be decided by the unions themselves in their by-laws. As for an open-ended list of the territories within which the union, an interregional union in this case, shall operate, the Committee recalls that requirements regarding territorial competence and number of union members should be left for trade unions to determine in their own by-laws. In fact, any legislative provisions that go beyond formal requirements may hinder the establishment and development of organizations and constitute interference contrary to Article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention [see Compilation, para. 566].
14. 585. The Committee further notes point 1.1. of the Proposals which calls to exempt unions from the scope of the administrative regulations for the registration of non-commercial organizations. This is a central point of this complaint as by virtue of the Law on Non-Commercial organizations, trade unions, which, by their nature, as indicated by the Government, are involved in political activities, must register as organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent if they receive funding from foreign sources.
15. 586. The Committee further observes that pursuant to the Law on Non-Commercial Organizations (taking into account amendments of December 2020 and March 2021, i.e. the draft Law to which the KTR referred), the status of a foreign agent entails certain additional obligations imposed on a trade union registered as such.
16. 587. Firstly, pursuant to section 24 of the Law:
    • Materials produced by a non-commercial organization included in the register of non-commercial organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent, and (or) distributed by it, including through the mass media and (or) using the Internet, materials sent by such an organization to state bodies, local governments, educational and other organizations, information related to activities of such an organization, disseminated through the media, must be accompanied by an indication that these materials (information) were produced, distributed and (or) sent by a non-profit organization performing the functions of a foreign agent, or relate to the activities of such an organization.
    • Materials produced and (or) distributed by the founder, member, participant, head of a non-commercial organization included in the register of non-commercial organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent, or a person who is a member of the body of such a non-commercial organization, when they carry out political activities on the territory of the Russian Federation, materials sent by these persons to state bodies, local self-government bodies, educational and other organizations in connection with the implementation of political activities on the territory of the Russian Federation, information concerning the political activities of these persons, disseminated through the media, must be accompanied by an indication that these materials (information) were produced, distributed and (or) sent by the founder, member, participant, head of a non-commercial organization performing the functions of a foreign agent, or a person who is a member of the body of such a non-commercial organization.
17. 588. Secondly, the Committee notes the following additional reporting obligations imposed on “foreign agents” (section 32 of the Law):
    • Annual mandatory audit of accounting (financial) statements.
    • An obligation to file an audit statement, information on programmes scheduled for implementation or being implemented, other documents constituting a basis for the conducting of events, their implementation or information that they have not taken place. The documents must contain information on the purpose of spending the monetary assets and other property received from foreign sources; information on programmes scheduled for implementation and other documents providing a basis for the conducting of events should be submitted before their implementation; information on programmes being implemented and other documents providing a basis for the conducting of events – annually; and a report on the implementation of programmes or information that the corresponding events have not taken place – annually.
    • An obligation to submit every six months a report on activities and on the composition of the governing bodies and staff.
    • An obligation to submit quarterly documents on the purpose of spending funds and using other property, including those received from foreign sources.
    • An obligations to submit once a year an auditor’s report.
    • An obligation to post on internet or to provide to mass media for publication a report on the activities once every six months.
18. 589. Thirdly, the Committee notes that the same section provides for scheduled (once a year) and unscheduled inspections of non-commercial organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent. The Committee notes that the reasons for unscheduled inspections include the receipt of information from the state authorities, local self-government authorities, citizens or organizations on a violation by a non-commercial organizations preforming the functions of a foreign agent of the legislation or its statutes; on non-registration as a foreign agent; and on the participation in events carried out by a foreign or international non-governmental organization whose activities have been declared undesirable on the territory of the Russian Federation. If during an investigation it appears necessary to obtain documents and/or information through inter-agency information exchange, to undertake complex and/or lengthy research or special expert analyses and investigations, the time limit for carrying out the investigation may be extended to 45 working days. The Committee considers that legislation which seriously hampers acivities of a trade union or an employers’ organization on the grounds that they accept financial assistance from an international organization of workers or employers to which they are affiliated infringes the principles concerning the right to affiliate with international organizations.
19. 590. Finally, the Committee notes that pursuant to section 32 of the Law, an authorized body can prohibit a non-commercial organization performing the functions of a foreign agent to implement a programme (or part thereof); it must provide a reasoned decision therefor. Failure to execute that decision entails the liquidation of the organization by a court.
20. 591. The Committee notes that pursuant to section 19.34 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, referred to by the KTR:
    • the failure to register as a non-commercial organization performing the functions of a foreign agent entails the imposition of an administrative fine on officials in the amount of up to 300,000 rubles and on legal entities – from 300,000 to 500,000 rubles;
    • the production of materials or their distribution, including through the mass media and/or the Internet, or the sending of materials by such organization to state bodies, etc., without indicating that these materials were produced, distributed or sent by a non-commercial organization acting as a foreign agent entail the imposition of an administrative fine on officials in the amount of up to 300,000 rubles with or without confiscation of the subject of an administrative offense; for legal entities - from 300,000 to 500,000 rubles with or without confiscation of the subject of an administrative offense.
    • the same done by the founder, member, participant, head of such an organization, entails the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of 5,000 rubles, with or without confiscation of the subject of an administrative offense.
21. 592. In the light of the above, the Committee considers that it is difficult to reconcile the additional bureaucratic burdens imposed on trade unions receiving financial assistance from abroad, including from an international trade union to which they are affiliated, as well as various hefty penalties that can be imposed on the organizations, their leaders and members, with the right of trade unions to organize their administration, to freely organize their activities and to formulate their programmes as well as with the right to benefit from international affiliation. The Committee recalls that the control exercised by the public authorities over trade union finances should not normally exceed the obligation to submit periodic reports. The discretionary right of the authorities to carry out inspections and request information at any time entails a danger of interference in the internal administration of trade unions [see Compilation, para. 711].
22. 593. The Committee considers that the regulations concerning “foreign agents” as applied to trade unions are unjustifiably burdensome and that possibly long and repeated inspections and onerous penalties raise the risk of paralysing the functioning of the affected trade unions. Moreover, the Committee is concerned that the obligation to indicate every material produced and disseminated by an organization performing the function of a foreign agent may negatively affect the image of trade unions and the role they play in the society. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary steps to find an appropriate solution through social dialogue in order to ensure that the regulations on non-commercial organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent are compatible with the principle of freedom of association. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all measures taken in this respect. It further expects that the discussion of the above-mentioned Proposals will continue in the framework of the RTK with a view to addressing and resolving all of the issues raised in this and previous cases in line with the Committee’s recommendations. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of all developments in this regard.
23. 594. The Committee draws the legislative aspects of this case to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Convention and Recommendations.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 595. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure that the right of trade unions to express opinions, including those criticizing the Government’s economic and social policies is duly protected in law and in practice. It requests the Government to indicate all steps taken to that end.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to find an appropriate solution through social dialogue in order to ensure that the regulations on non-commercial organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent are compatible with the principle of freedom of association. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all measures taken in this respect.
   • (c) The Committee expects that the discussion of the April 2010 Proposals will continue in the framework of the RTK with a view to addressing and resolving all of the issues raised in this and previous cases in line with the Committee’s recommendations. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of all developments in this regard.
   • (d) The Committee draws the legislative aspects of this case to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Convention and Recommendations.