Informe provisional - Informe núm. 412, Noviembre 2025

Caso núm. 3452 (Argentina) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 15-ENE-24 - Activo

Allegations: The complainant organizations allege the adoption of a Ministry of Security resolution that would undermine the right to protest, the adoption of decrees of necessity and emergency contrary to freedom of association and acts repressing trade union rights in practice

1. 99. The complaint is contained in communications dated 15 and 30 January, 14 February, 22 July and 16 September 2024, and 17 March and 29 May 2025, presented by the General Confederation of Labour of the Argentine Republic (CGT–RA), the Confederation of Workers of Argentina (CTA–T) and the Autonomous Confederation of Workers of Argentina (CTA Autonomous), supported by IndustriALL Global Union on 5 February 2024.
2. 100. The Government submitted its observations in communications dated 2 May 2024, 6 and 16 May, and 8 October 2025.
3. 101. Argentina 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), the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).

A. The complainants’ allegations

1. 102. In their communication dated 15 January 2024, the complainants allege that the adoption by the Ministry of Security of the “Protocol for maintaining public order during road blockages” (hereinafter the Protocol) pursuant to resolution No. 943/2023 of 14 December 2023 circumvents basic constitutional safeguards and rights, as well as the country’s democratic institutions. The complainants state that the Protocol authorizes all federal forces (Gendarmerie, Prefecture, Airport Security Police, Federal Police and Federal Prison Service) to intervene against “impediments to the transit of persons or means of transport, and partial or complete blockages of national highways and other roads” understood to mean “any gathering of people or placement of barriers or other obstacles that reduce the width of the streets, roads or avenues for vehicle traffic, or that obstruct railway transit, including where they do not create a hazardous situation, or that block the entry of people to public areas or places of business. For the purposes hereof, the fact that affected parties may have access to alternative routes shall not be taken into account.” The complainants further allege that the Protocol provides for: (i) intervention by the police forces without a court order, since social protest is regarded as a criminal offence under article 194 of the Criminal Code; (ii) the creation of a register of organizations that protest in public spaces; (iii) the identification of vehicles transporting people to demonstrations, as well as the power to seize such vehicles and conduct inquiries into the persons driving them; (iv) the identification of “the perpetrators, accomplices and instigators” through filming and other digital or manual means, with priority given to registering the details of their leaders and organization – whether formal or informal entities, with or without legal personality – including trade unions or political parties; and (v) the possibility to bring court claims against organizations and individuals responsible for the costs of operations conducted to halt the unlawful acts, as determined pursuant to Ministry of Security resolution No. 949/2023 of 21 December 2023.
2. 103. The complainants also mention the adoption by the executive branch of the Decree of Necessity and Emergency No. 70/2023 of 20 December 2023. They allege that, under the guise of laying “foundations for the reconstruction of the Argentine economy”, the Decree was not subject to parliamentary debate and constitutes an assault on the nation’s key institutions, including the system of individual and collective labour standards. It threatens, inter alia, the activities and very existence of trade union organizations. In this context, the complainants state that they have taken court action, accompanied by a demonstration on 27 December 2023 outside the headquarters of the judiciary, urging the courts to exercise their oversight function over the executive branch and to declare the Decree unconstitutional. They state that the demonstration was authorized, that it received broad support and that it proceeded peacefully, except for a few disturbances caused by the excessive deployment of police. They allege that, on 10 January 2024, the Ministry of Security ordered around a dozen trade union organizations to pay between 40 and 56 million Argentine pesos each, invoking its resolutions Nos 943/2023 and 949/2023 to cover the operating costs of halting the “unlawful acts” and maintaining public order. According to the complainants, the fines exceed the administrative powers of the State, violate the principle of “compensation for harm caused” and are based on a dogmatic approach whereby workers’ claims become grounds for dismissal and protest constitutes a criminal offence. The Government is thus supplementing the body of law to prevent its agenda from being called into question, in defiance of the principles of social dialogue and freedom of association. The complainants assert that the Government’s actions constitute an attempt at intimidation in the face of an imminent general strike [in January 2024] that enjoyed the support of the Trade Union Confederation of the Americas (TUCA) and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC).
3. 104. In their communication of 30 January 2024, the complainants provided additional information regarding the content of the Decree of Necessity and Emergency. In particular, they allege that the Decree adds, in articles 87 and 88: (i) an article 20 bis to Act No. 23.551, regulating the right to hold assemblies and meetings and imposing negative restrictions for doing so (they cannot disrupt the company’s normal activities or affect third parties); and (ii) an article 20 ter on prohibited acts, under which: (a) infringing on the right to work of those not participating in a strike action through acts, conduct, intimidation or threats; (b) blockading or taking over an establishment, and fully or partially impeding or obstructing the entry or exit of people and/or things to or from the establishment; and (c) causing harm to people or property owned by the company or third parties located on the premises, or unduly holding them, are considered very serious offences. The complainants also object to: (i) the list of essential services as amended by the Decree (article 97, replacing article 24 of Act No. 25.877), which, in their opinion, inverts the principle of freedom of association by allowing limitations on all strikes except those specified; and (ii) the weakening of trade unions following the expiry of the collective labour agreements and possible interference by the executive in the renewal of these agreements (article 86 of Decree of Necessity and Emergency No. 70/2023).
4. 105. In their communication of 22 July 2024, the complainants state that, on 13 June 2024, the National Congress passed Act No. 27.742, entitled “Bases and starting points for the freedom of the Argentine people” and Act No. 27.743-3, entitled “Key fiscal relief measures”, which include a series of chapters introducing new provisions that undermine and, in some cases, abrogate acquired labour rights. They allege that these Acts were passed without consultation or social dialogue with trade unions, and have had various implications for freedom of association and collective bargaining. In this connection, the complainants allege that: (i) the free exercise of freedom of association rights has been affected, as assumptions are made against workers and trade union organizations in labour dispute situations, in violation of the constitutional right to strike; (ii) the most vulnerable in the world of work are discriminated against by being deprived of the legal framework for anti-discrimination protection with the introduction of a “special” regime under which only the right to financial compensation is recognized, depriving workers of the right to petition for the annulment of the discriminatory act in question and consequent reinstatement; (iii) the Act No. 23.592 on measures against discrimination is rendered inapplicable – albeit indirectly – to anti-union dismissals in which reinstatement of the dismissed worker could otherwise be sought. In practice, “discriminatory dismissal for exercising the right to strike is permitted” with compensation equal to 50 per cent of that for dismissals without cause; and (iv) the right of trade union organizations to negotiate collectively is limited, in that the possibility to negotiate wage components excluded from workers’ income tax (such as allowances for representation, travel, food, mobility, special bonuses, formal events, occupational risks, technical skills, special duties or commitments, hierarchical or functional responsibilities, relocation, productivity bonuses or overtime) was eliminated.
5. 106. In a communication dated 16 September 2024, the complainants allege that Ministry of Security resolution No. 893/2024 of 5 September 2024 broadens the repressive framework established under resolution No. 943/2023 against trade union and social protests by expanding the powers of the security forces to intervene in the protests without a court order through the creation of a “unified productive security command”, which comprises law enforcement and Ministry of Security officials. The organizations state that this command is a permanent body, highlighting the State’s intention to ensure the continuity of economic activities even when they undermine fundamental rights, such as the exercise of freedom of association. They allege that, in this context, any disruption to productive activities may be viewed as a threat to economic stability, justifying an enhanced security response and increased repression. The complainants allege that the application of punitive financial penalties and the expansion of the security forces’ powers without judicial oversight constitute a serious and disproportionate threat to workers’ rights.
6. 107. In their communication of 17 March 2025, the organizations allege new repressive acts and violations of the fundamental rights of workers, which occurred on 12 March 2025 during a retirees’ protest, in which various organizations, including trade unions, human rights organizations and political parties, took part. They claim that the protest was scheduled to begin at 5 p.m. in front of the National Congress, but protesters had already gathered there by 3 p.m. The complainants allege in particular that: (i) despite the fact that the demonstrators were exercising their right to peaceful protest, the security forces began launching pepper gas against the first crowds of people from 4 p.m.; (ii) for more than six hours, serious repressive acts were carried out, initially by the federal security forces (Federal Police, Gendarmerie, Prefecture and Airport Security Police) attached to the Ministry of Security and subsequently by the Buenos Aires City Police, injuring 989 people; (iii) the security forces used tear gas, pepper gas, batons, shields, water cannons and rubber bullets; and (iv) when the demonstrators peacefully dispersed, the security forces, without any justification whatsoever, arrested some 40 people, all trade union leaders, including the deputy secretary-general of the CTA–T. In total, 114 people were arrested, including two children aged 14 and 12 who had left school and were confined and held incommunicado for hours. They were immediately released by Judge Andrade, the presiding judge of Criminal Court No. 15 for serious, ordinary and minor offences of the City of Buenos Aires. The organizations allege that the security forces acted with excessive violence during an unusual operational deployment that, combined with the subsequent legal complaint filed by the Ministry of Security for sedition, offences against the constitutional order and democratic life, and aggravated unlawful association, had the immediate effect of creating a climate of fear that has discouraged any form of protest. They assert that the truth of the matter was confirmed by the decision of the judge of Federal Administrative Court No. 11, who stated that “[the Court] is not unaware of nor is it unmoved by the unfortunate events of 12 March 2025, which are public knowledge and appear to be unbefitting of the republican principles enshrined in the national Constitution and the supranational standards that constitute the country’s supreme law” and, regarding the rally scheduled for 19 March, it “will closely watch with great interest everything that occurs there to gather, of its own motion ... all evidence of any conduct, event and/or act that may serve to resolve the matter at hand”.
7. 108. In its communication of 29 May 2025, the complainants allege that Decree of Necessity and Emergency No. 340/2025 issued by the executive branch on 20 May 2025 again infringes on the right to strike and freedom of association, as it includes merchant shipping as an essential service under article 24 of Act No. 25. 877, which had already been amended by article 97 of Decree of Necessity and Emergency No. 70/2023. They claim that the sole purpose of the new article 24, which maintains the obligation to guarantee an effective minimum service at between 50 and 75 per cent of normal service levels, is to impose restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike in all areas of the production system in order to weaken collective action. For the complainants, Decree of Necessity and Emergency No. 340/2025 was passed to the detriment of the constitutional order and the separation of powers, without any emergency to justify it.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 109. In its communication of 2 May 2024, the Government recalls that the assumption of office by the current administrative authorities triggered almost daily threats and demonstrations that were unrelated to occupational interests and were intended to challenge the new Government’s policy initiatives in general. It points out that most of the demonstrations were intended to block the streets. The Government states that the existence of freedom of speech in the country has never been challenged and that the purpose of Ministry of Security resolution No. 943/2023 was none other than to: (i) prevent the legitimately formed constitutional authorities from being subjected to “extortion tactics” by protesting violently and blocking traffic permanently or for long periods of time, which was not a necessary consequence of transporting people to the site of the demonstration or the gathering of large numbers of protesters, but a deliberate ploy to undermine the rights of third parties as a means of pressuring the authorities; and (ii) balance the right to peaceful protest with the rights of the rest of the population to travel freely, work or conduct business. The Government underscores the importance of protecting the right to work in a country with a high level of job insecurity, both in terms of working conditions and income, thereby offering a balanced framework in which to exercise one’s rights.
2. 110. The Government points out that the regulatory measures were not intended to restrict direct actions challenging governance models in the context of an occupational grievance, but rather to address manifestations of “pure institutional risk” affecting institutional governance. The Government states that road blockages and pickets are intended solely to cause harm rather than to defend a constitutional safeguard, namely the freedom of demonstration, expression and association. It claims that speaking about the criminalization of “social protest” generically without making this distinction is to misinterpret the true intentions of the Government and the purpose of the Protocol, which is to protect democratic coexistence, ensure respect for the rights of the general population and defend the exercise by the legitimate authorities of their constitutional and legal powers against groups that, by deliberately disrupting or hindering traffic on public thoroughfares and undermining the rights of third parties, seek to overturn the outcome of republican decision-making processes. The Government further claims that: (i) the Protocol is activated in the situations outlined in articles 2 and 3 of resolution No. 943/2023 rather than in all circumstances; (ii) the Protocol is an internal order to the security forces; it does not constitute an intervention in potential protests arising from an inhibited political power; (iii) the security forces may only intervene in case of criminal acts in flagrante delicto, that is, when an unlawful act under ordinary criminal law is occurring; (iv) in the event of a criminal offence, a process of investigation must be initiated, as mentioned in articles 6–11 of the Protocol; and (v) the Protocol therefore only regulates the actions of the police and security forces to halt offences in flagrante delicto, and allow them to be investigated and subsequently tried in court.
3. 111. The Government insists that the only offence covered by the legislative framework in question is the flagrant and intentional disruption or hindrance of the transit of vehicles on the streets, roads, motorways, avenues and railways, and entry to and exit from certain premises, pursuant to articles 194 and 174, paragraph 6, of the Criminal Code. This is very different from restricting protests, which may be held freely, without limiting the rights of the rest of the country’s inhabitants within the meaning of article 14 of the Constitution. The Government claims that obstacles to the free movement of people threaten rights such as being able to travel to work within a reasonable time frame without the burden of having to add several hours to the working day as a result of travel disruptions; the right to run lawful businesses, such as shops or other establishments that should normally be accessible without difficulty and that would otherwise have to close to prevent looting or face a lack of customers; the right to use and access property; or the right to teach and learn, as the delays caused by the blocked roads affect children and teachers travelling to and from school. The Government further claims that the blocked roads have on numerous occasions affected the delivery of essential emergency services and their right to constitutional and conventional protection under Argentine law. The Government points out that blocking streets, roads and avenues is not extraordinary in Argentina. It states that a note published in June 2022 in the Buenos Aires newspaper La Nación reported that 3,400 pickets had been recorded in six months, meaning that 3,400 streets, roads, motorways or avenues were blocked. The Government adds that situation had to be regulated because a total of 9,978 streets were blocked in Argentina in 2022, according to other sources. The Government also points out that the Protocol does not establish or classify any offences other than those provided for in the Criminal Code (article 194) and does not grant the police or security forces any powers other than those accorded under criminal procedure law to halt offences in flagrante delicto, gather evidence or bring the perpetrators before the judicial authorities (articles 184, 281, 284 and 285 of the Criminal Procedure Code). The Government does not believe that the exercise of the right to protest can be used as an excuse to commit crimes, especially when such rights may be exercised in a variety of ways that do not illegitimately affect the rights of third parties. The police and security forces do not intervene pursuant to resolution No. 943/2023 in demonstrations that do not unduly disrupt or hinder traffic.
4. 112. As regards the cost of the security operations, the Government stresses that the Protocol does not create any powers, but merely recalls general rules already in place under civil law establishing the obligation to fully repay the costs and damages arising from unlawful acts. Any reimbursements and those liable to pay shall be determined through civil, criminal or administrative court procedures in accordance with the relevant procedural and substantive legislation.
5. 113. In its communication of 6 May 2025, the Government claims that the executive branch passed Decree of Necessity and Emergency No. 70/2023 in exercise of the powers conferred by the Constitution in case of a severe economic crisis. It also states that, on 30 January 2024, the National Labour Court of Appeal upheld the application for amparo [protection of constitutional rights] lodged by the CGT–RA and declared Title IV (articles 53–97) of the Decree to be constitutionally invalid as it violated article 99(3) of the Constitution. The Government goes on to state that the application of Title IV of the Decree is suspended by an interim measure and that both court decisions challenged by the Government are currently being considered by the Supreme Court of Justice. The Government generally denies that the purpose of the labour reform under the Decree is to change, without prior consultation or social dialogue, the normative framework of workers’ individual and collective rights, and that it violates trade union rights. Rather, the Government believes that the behaviour of the trade unions themselves renders social dialogue impossible, and that they systematically challenge political governance and often disregard the legitimacy of the Government’s decisions, including those of an institutional nature.
6. 114. In response to the main allegations relating to the content of Decree of Necessity and Emergency No. 70/2023 regarding collective disputes, the Government points out that the acts prohibited under article 88 are in line with the case law of the higher courts on common offences during strike action. As regards the amendment of the list of essential services pursuant to Decree of Necessity and Emergency No. 70/2023 (article 97 of the Decree, replacing article 24 of Act No. 25.877), the Government emphasizes that the definition of essential services in the strict sense depends heavily on the specific conditions in each country and that the activities listed under article 97 are deemed essential services because of the emergency situation in the country. With respect to article 86 of the Decree, on possible interference by the executive in the renewal of collective labour agreements, the Government indicates that: (i) the article replaces article 6 of Act No. 14.250 with: “Where the term of a collective labour agreement has expired, only provisions relating to working conditions established thereunder (normative clauses) shall remain in force, until a new collective labour agreement enters into effect or the parties agree to extend it. The remaining provisions (obligation clauses) may remain in effect only by agreement of the parties or by a specific extension granted by the national executive branch”; (ii) trade unions and employers can continue negotiating new collective agreements to replace existing ones; and (iii) given the new changes in the world of work, an excessively long agreement term cannot be said to be an asset for the negotiating parties or for the bargaining system as a whole.
7. 115. Concerning the allegations relating to Act No. 27.742, “Bases and starting points for the freedom of the Argentine people”, the Government indicates that article 95 of Act No. 27.742 (incorporating article 245 bis into Act No. 20.744) is intended, in line with other amendments to labour regulations, to provide legal certainty in labour relations, given the serious unemployment situation facing the country. The Government states that: (i) the introduction of enhanced severance compensation under the new legislation provides, in the event of unfair dismissal, predictability and certainty to both the employer and the worker regarding the extent of compensation for the discriminatory act; and (ii) the fact that, in all cases, dismissal entails the termination of the employment relationship for all purposes is intended to protect the worker from being reinstated in a position where he or she was subjected to discriminatory treatment, thereby preventing continued exposure of the worker to conduct that the legislator sought to prohibit through the adoption of Act No. 23.592.
8. 116. In its communication of 16 May 2025, the Government provides information relating to the alleged acts of repression and violation of the fundamental rights of workers that occurred on 12 March 2025, during the retirees’ protest, in which various trade union organizations took part. In this regard, it indicates that the complainants misrepresented the facts, rendering them inaccurate, insofar as the event in question was a political demonstration and was not organized by stakeholders from the world of work, and that the security forces acted proportionately. The Government also provides information regarding the judicial and administrative proceedings relating to the reported incidents, particularly those of Federal Administrative Court No. 11 (case No. 48198/2023) and Juvenile, Misdemeanours and Minor Offences Court of First Instance No. 3 concerning habeas corpus (case No. CAU 39860/2025-0). The Government observes that Juvenile, Misdemeanours and Minor Offences Court of First Instance No. 3 rejected a collective petition for preventive habeas corpus under Act No. 23.098, pointing out that “there is insufficient evidence to consider that there exists a systematic practice of arrests without a court order or without proper justification on the grounds of the commission of a flagrant offence, in relation to children and adolescents”.
9. 117. In its communication of 8 October 2025, the Government indicates that, after the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies rejected various decrees, including Decree of Necessity and Emergency No. 340/2025, the regulatory provisions that had been repealed, replaced or amended by Decree of Necessity and Emergency No. 340/2025 and that had been in force at the time the Decree was passed were restored to full effect, pursuant to Decree of Necessity and Emergency No. 628/2025 of 2 September 2025. The Government therefore requests the dismissal of the allegations contained in the complainants’ communication of 29 May 2025.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

The Protocol for maintaining public order during road blockages

Decree of Necessity and Emergency No. 70/2023

1. 118. The Committee observes that this case concerns, on the one hand, the adoption of a series of rules that are allegedly contrary to freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining and, on the other, alleged repressive acts in practice that violate the exercise of freedom of association.
2. 119. The Committee notes the complainants’ allegation that the adoption by the Ministry of Security of the Protocol for maintaining public order during road blockages pursuant to resolution No. 943/2023 of 14 December 2023 circumvents basic constitutional safeguards and rights, as well as the country’s democratic institutions. The Committee notes that the complainants allege in particular that the Protocol authorizes the federal forces (Gendarmerie, Prefecture, Airport Security Police, Federal Police and Federal Prison Service) to intervene against “impediments to the transit of persons or means of transport, and partial or complete blockages of national highways and other roads” understood to mean “any gathering of people or placement of barriers or other obstacles that reduce the width of the streets, roads or avenues for vehicle traffic, or that obstruct railway transit, including where they do not create a hazardous situation, or that block the entry of people to public areas or places of business. For the purposes hereof, the fact that affected parties may have access to alternative routes shall not be taken into account.” The Committee notes that the complainants allege that the Protocol, in violation of freedom of association, provides for: (i) intervention by the police forces without a court order, since social protest is regarded as a criminal offence under article 194 of the Criminal Code; (ii) the creation of a register of organizations that protest in public spaces; (iii) the identification of vehicles transporting people to demonstrations, as well as the power to seize such vehicles and conduct inquiries into the persons driving them; (iv) the identification of “the perpetrators, accomplices and instigators” through filming and other digital or manual means, with priority given to registering the details of their leaders and organization – whether formal or informal entities, with or without legal personality – including trade unions or political parties; and (v) the possibility to bring court claims against organizations and individuals responsible for the costs of operations conducted to halt the unlawful acts, as determined pursuant to Ministry of Security resolution No. 949/2023 of 21 December 2023. The Committee notes that the complainants state in this regard that, during the demonstration on 27 December 2023 in front of the headquarters of the judiciary, which they claim was authorized, the Ministry of Security ordered the various trade union organizations present to pay between 40 and 56 million pesos each, invoking its resolutions Nos 943/2023 and 949/2023 to cover the operating costs of halting the “unlawful acts” and maintaining public order.
3. 120. The Committee takes note of the further allegations made by the complainants that Ministry of Security resolution No. 893/2024 of 5 September 2024 broadens the repressive framework established under resolution No. 943/2023 to the extent that, under this new resolution, repressive measures against trade union and social protests have been intensified by expanding the powers of the security forces to intervene in the protests without a court order through the creation of a “unified productive security command”, which comprises law enforcement and Ministry of Security officials. The Committee notes the complainants’ statement that this command is permanent and that any disruption to productive activities may therefore be viewed as a threat to economic stability, justifying an enhanced security response or, in other words, increased repression, without judicial oversight. According to the complainants, this constitutes a serious and disproportionate threat to workers’ rights. Noting with concern that the Protocol seeks to classify the exercise of social protest as a type of criminal offence, the Committee recalls that penal sanctions should only be imposed if, in the framework of a strike, violence against persons and property or other serious violations of the ordinary criminal law are committed, and this, on the basis of the laws and regulations punishing such acts [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, para. 955].
4. 121. The Committee notes that the Government, for its part, states that the existence of freedom of speech in the country has never been challenged and that the purpose of Ministry of Security Protocol was none other than to: (i) prevent the legitimately formed constitutional authorities from being subjected to “extortion tactics” by protesting violently and blocking traffic permanently or for long periods of time, which was not a necessary consequence of transporting people to the site of the demonstration or the gathering of large numbers of protesters, but a deliberate ploy to undermine the rights of third parties as a means of pressuring the authorities; and (ii) balance the right to peaceful protest with the rights of the rest of the population to travel freely, work or conduct business, considering the importance of protecting the right to work in a country with a high level of job insecurity, both in terms of working conditions and income, thereby offering a balanced framework in which to exercise one’s rights.
5. 122. The Committee takes note of the Government’s statement in this respect that: (i) the regulatory measures were not intended to restrict direct actions challenging governance models in the context of an occupational grievance, but rather to address manifestations of “pure institutional risk” affecting institutional governance; (ii) road blockages and pickets are intended solely to cause harm rather than to defend a constitutional safeguard, namely the freedom of demonstration, expression and association; (iii) the Protocol is activated in the situations outlined in articles 2 and 3 thereof, that is, in case of criminal acts in flagrante delicto; (iv) the situation had to be regulated, given the very high frequency with which streets, roads, motorways or avenues were blocked; (v) the Protocol does not establish or classify any offences other than those provided for in the Criminal Code (article 194) and does not grant the police or security forces any powers other than those accorded under criminal procedure law to halt offences in flagrante delicto, gather evidence or bring the perpetrators before the judicial authorities; and (vi) the complainants are taking the other provisions of the Protocol out of context and, regarding payment of the costs of the security operations, the Protocol merely recalls general rules applicable under civil law establishing the obligation to fully repay the costs and damages arising from unlawful acts.
6. 123. The Committee takes note of the parties’ conflicting positions. It notes, on the one hand, that the complainants consider the fundamental right to protest to be threatened by the Ministry of Security’s Protocol to the extent that any demonstration could be deemed an unlawful act that would trigger a response by law enforcement, in effect preventing the democratic expression of social protest. It notes, on the other hand, the Government’s assertion that the purpose of the Protocol is not to prevent the expression of occupational grievances, but to prevent repeated road blockages that violate citizens’ rights, such as being able to travel to work, conduct business, study or receive medical treatment. At the same time, it suggests that the protesters’ aim is often to create disorder to exert pressure on the Government. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the exercise of the right to protest cannot be used as an excuse to commit crimes and that the police and security forces do not intervene pursuant to resolution No. 943/2023 in demonstrations that do not unduly disrupt or hinder traffic.
7. 124. The Committee notes the Government’s justification of the need to take measures to achieve general interest objectives through the Protocol and prevent recurring road blockages. The Committee notes in this respect that the Protocol: (i) establishes the conditions for intervention by law enforcement (namely, in cases of offences in flagrante delicto punishable under article 194 of the Criminal Code (article 2 of the Protocol)); (ii) defines road blockages (“any gathering of people or placement of barriers or other obstacles that reduce the width of the streets, roads or avenues for vehicle traffic ... including where they do not create a hazardous situation, or that block the entry of people to public areas or places of business [regardless of whether] the affected parties had alternative routes (article 3)); (iii) establishes the purpose of action by the Federal Police and security forces (to clear access routes and communication or transport links in accordance with the law and to discharge their duties until the space is fully open for traffic (article 4 of the Protocol)); and (iv) sets out a series of measures against the “perpetrators, accomplices, instigators and organizers” involved in obstructing traffic, ranging from search to possible arrest, including compensation for the cost of the operations to halt the unlawful acts (articles 6–11 of the Protocol).
8. 125. The Committee further notes that the parties have provided no information on the other legal or administrative conditions governing the exercise of the right to protest, particularly as regards the establishment of itineraries that demonstrators should follow. The Committee notes the organizations’ indication, without further details, that the demonstration on 27 December 2023 was authorized.
9. 126. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee wishes to recall first and foremost that workers should enjoy the right to peaceful demonstration to defend their occupational interests and that trade union organizations should conduct themselves responsibly and respect the peaceful manner in which the right of assembly should be exercised [see Compilation, paras 208 and 211].
10. 127. The Committee also emphasizes that it has considered that the requirement of administrative permission to hold public meetings and demonstrations is not objectionable per se from the standpoint of the principles of freedom of association and that the maintenance of public order is not incompatible with the right to hold demonstrations so long as the authorities responsible for public order reach agreement with the organizers of a demonstration concerning the place where it will be held and the manner in which it will take place. The Committee further recalls that the obligation on a procession to follow a predetermined itinerary does not constitute a violation of trade union rights [see Compilation, paras 218 and 227]. Based on these considerations, the Committee requests the Government to adopt provisions, in consultation with the social partners, that afford reasonable protection both to the right of trade union organizations to protest peacefully in public and to the need to safeguard free movement of persons, for example by establishing itineraries agreed with the authorities in advance. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect.
11. 128. In relation to the fines that could be imposed on trade union organizations as compensation for the costs of law enforcement operations to clear public thoroughfares in case of unlawful acts, the Committee requests the Government to ensure, in consultation with the social partners, that the imposition of fines does not violate the right to peaceful demonstration and that, in cases of unlawful conduct, the amount remains proportionate to the seriousness of the offence committed and is not such as to have an intimidating effect on organizations conducting legitimate trade union activities. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect. The Committee also requests the Government and the complainants to provide information on the court challenge against resolution No. 943/2023.
12. 129. The Committee notes that, in its communications of 15 and 30 January 2024, the complainants allege that the Decree of Necessity and Emergency adopted by the executive branch on 20 December 2023 constitutes an assault on the nation’s key institutions, including the system of individual and collective labour standards. It threatens, inter alia, the activities and very existence of trade union organizations. The Committee notes that the complainants allege in particular that articles 87 and 88 of the Decree adds: (i) an article 20 bis to Act No. 23.551, regulating the right to hold assemblies and meetings and imposing negative restrictions for doing so, namely that they cannot disrupt the company’s normal activities or affect third parties; and (ii) an article 20 ter on prohibited acts, under which: (a) infringing on the right to work of those not participating in a strike action through acts, conduct, intimidation or threats; (b) blockading or taking over an establishment, and fully or partially impeding or obstructing the entry or exit of people and/or things to or from the establishment; and (c) causing harm to people or property owned by the company or third parties located on the premises, or unduly holding them, are considered very serious offences. The complainants also object to: (i) the amendment pursuant to the Decree (article 97, amending article 24 of Act No. 25.877) to the list of essential services, which, in its opinion, would allow limitations on all strikes except those specified; and (ii) the weakening of trade unions following the expiry of the collective labour agreements and possible interference by the executive in the renewal of the mandatory clauses of these agreements (article 86 of the Decree).
13. 130. The Committee notes that the complainants also state, in their communication of 29 May 2025, that article 24 of Act No. 25. 877 was again amended to include merchant shipping as an essential service pursuant to articles 2 and 3 of Decree of Necessity and Emergency No. 340/2025. In this respect, the Committee takes due note of the Government’s communication of 8 October 2025, according to which, after the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies rejected various decrees, including Decree of Necessity and Emergency No. 340/2025, the regulatory provisions that had been repealed, replaced or amended by Decree of Necessity and Emergency No. 340/2025 and that had been in force at the time the Decree was passed were restored to full effect, pursuant to Decree of Necessity and Emergency No. 628/2025. Under these circumstances, the Committee will hereafter focus its examination solely on the allegations relating to Decree of Necessity and Emergency No. 70/2023.
14. 131. The Committee notes that the Government indicates, in its communication of 6 May 2025, that the executive branch issued Decree of Necessity and Emergency No. 70/2023 in exercise of the powers conferred by the Constitution in case of a severe economic crisis and that, on 30 January 2024, the National Labour Court of Appeal upheld the application for amparo lodged by the CGT–RA and declared Title IV (articles 53–97) of the Decree to be constitutionally invalid as it violated article 99(3) of the Constitution, which grants the President the exceptional power to issue necessity and emergency decrees (DNU) when ordinary legislative processes are impossible due to exceptional circumstances. The Government goes on to state that the application of Title IV of the Decree is suspended by an interim measure pending a final ruling on the matter. The Committee requests the Government to provide the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice regarding the validity of Decree of Necessity and Emergency No. 70/2023, once it has been rendered.
15. 132. The Committee notes that the Government also states, regarding the content of Decree of Necessity and Emergency No. 70/2023, that: (i) prohibited acts as part of a collective dispute under article 88 are in line with the case law of the higher courts on common offences during strike action; (ii) the definition of essential services in the strict sense depends heavily on the specific conditions in each country, and the activities listed under article 97 are deemed essential services because of the emergency situation in the country; and (iii) the provisions of article 86 on the conditions for extending the obligation clauses of a collective labour agreement that has expired are intended to prevent excessively long agreement terms, which would not be in the interests of the negotiating parties or the bargaining system as a whole.
16. 133. Although Decree of Necessity and Emergency No. 70/2023 is subject to court appeals, the Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the points set out below.
17. 134. In relation to article 88 of Decree of Necessity and Emergency No. 70/2023, the Committee also observes that: (i) acts under general criminal law, such as violent actions or detaining people; and (ii) violations of freedom of association are classed as very serious offences under article 88 of the Decree. Regarding this second point, the Committee recalls that it has considered that the exercise of the right to strike should respect the freedom to work of non-strikers, as established by the legislation, as well as the right of the management to enter the premises of the enterprise. Taking part in picketing and firmly but peacefully inciting other workers to keep away from their workplace cannot be considered unlawful. The case is different, however, when picketing is accompanied by violence or coercion of non-strikers in an attempt to interfere with their freedom to work; such acts constitute criminal offences in many countries [see Compilation, paras 940 and 939].
18. 135. As for the determination of services for which the Decree imposes restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike, the Committee notes that article 24 of Act No. 25.877, as amended by the aforementioned decrees: (i) sets out a list of services deemed essential, for which a minimum service of 75 per cent must be maintained during any strike; (ii) sets out a list of services deemed important, for which a minimum service of 50 per cent must be maintained during any strike; and (iii) provides for the establishment of a guarantees commission comprising five experts that can classify as essential or important services not expressly included in the lists mentioned. The Committee also notes that: (i) the list of essential services includes activities such as commercial aviation; (ii) the list of important services covers a broad range of economic and industrial activities; and (iii) the criteria by which the guarantees commission may classify additional services as essential or important includes whether the strike affects tax revenue targets. The Committee recalls its finding that the establishment of minimum services in the case of strike action should only be possible in: (i) services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (essential services in the strict sense of the term); (ii) services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term but where the extent and duration of a strike might be such as to result in an acute national crisis endangering the normal living conditions of the population; and (iii) in public services of fundamental importance [see Compilation, para. 866]. The Committee also recalls that it has indicated that the minimum service should be restricted to the operations which are necessary to satisfy the basic needs of the population or the minimum requirements of the service, while ensuring that the scope of the minimum service does not render the strike ineffective [see Compilation, para. 874].
19. 136. With regard to the conditions for extending the obligation clauses of a collective labour agreement that has expired, the Committee notes that article 86 of Decree of Necessity and Emergency No. 70/2023 replaces article 6 of Act No. 14.250 with: “Where the term of a collective labour agreement has expired, only provisions relating to working conditions established thereunder (normative clauses) shall remain in force, until a new collective labour agreement enters into effect or the parties agree to extend it. The remaining provisions (obligation clauses) may remain in effect only by agreement of the parties or by a specific extension granted by the national executive branch.” The Committee recalls that it has had occasion to express its opinion on the extension of collective agreements, pointing out that such action, involving as it did statutory intervention in the collective bargaining process, should only be taken in cases of emergency and for brief periods of time [see Compilation, para. 1455]. The Committee also points out that the duration of collective agreements is primarily a matter for the parties involved, but if government action is being considered any legislation should reflect tripartite agreement [see Compilation, para. 1502].
20. 137. The Committee stressed the importance that it attaches to holding consultations with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations with sufficient advance notice and, in particular, to ensuring that the drafts of laws or decrees are submitted to these organizations for consultation well before their adoption by the Government as a prerequisite for consideration by Parliament [see Compilation, para. 1543]. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee trusts that the competent authorities will take account of the conclusions of the present case relating to the content of Decree of Necessity and Emergency No. 70/2023 (articles 86, 88 and 97). It requests the Government to ensure that any future legislative or regulatory reforms affecting labour relations are undertaken in full consultation with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations, and to provide information in this regard.

Other disputed texts

Allegations of repressive acts in practice

1. 138. The Committee notes that the complainants also assert that, on 13 June 2024, the National Congress passed Act No. 27.742, entitled “Bases and starting points for the freedom of the Argentine people” and Act No. 27.743-3, entitled “Key fiscal relief measures”, which include a series of chapters introducing new provisions that undermine and, in some cases, abrogate acquired labour rights. They allege that these Acts were passed without consultation or social dialogue with trade unions, and have had various implications for freedom of association and collective bargaining. The Committee takes note of the complainants’ allegation in this regard that: (i) the free exercise of freedom of association rights has been affected, as assumptions are made against workers and trade union organizations in labour dispute situations, in violation of the constitutional right to strike; (ii) the most vulnerable in the world of work are discriminated against by being deprived of the legal framework for anti-discrimination protection with the introduction of a “special” regime under which only the right to financial compensation is recognized, depriving workers of the right to petition for the annulment of the discriminatory act in question and consequent reinstatement; (iii) the Act No. 23.592 on measures against discrimination is rendered inapplicable – albeit indirectly – to anti-union dismissals in which reinstatement of the dismissed worker could otherwise be sought. In practice, “discriminatory dismissal for exercising the right to strike is permitted” with compensation equal to 50 per cent of that for dismissals without cause; and (iv) the right of trade union organizations to negotiate collectively is limited, in that the possibility to negotiate wage components excluded from workers’ income tax (such as allowances for representation, travel, food, mobility, special bonuses, formal events, occupational risks, technical skills, special duties or commitments, hierarchical or functional responsibilities, relocation, productivity bonuses or overtime) was eliminated.
2. 139. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that the insertion of article 245 bis into Act No. 20.744 pursuant to article 95 of Act No. 27.742, which provides for enhanced severance compensation in the event of dismissal on discriminatory grounds and definitive termination of the employment relationship, is intended, in line with other amendments to labour regulations, to provide legal certainty in labour relations, given the serious unemployment situation facing the country. The Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that: (i) the introduction of enhanced severance compensation under the new legislation provides predictability and certainty to both the employer and the worker regarding the extent of compensation for the discriminatory act; and (ii) the fact that, in all cases, dismissal entails the termination of the employment relationship for all purposes is intended to protect the worker from being reinstated in a position where he or she was subjected to discriminatory treatment, thereby preventing continued exposure of the worker to conduct that the legislator sought to prohibit through the adoption of Act No. 23.592.
3. 140. The Committee observes that, while Act No. 23.592 establishes criminal penalties for the commission of offences motivated by discriminatory acts, article 245 bis of Act No. 20.744 only provides for payment of compensation as punishment for such acts (50 per cent more than the amount established for dismissal without just cause) and that, according to the information supplied by the complainants, this differs from the previous system, which also provided for the annulment of the anti-union dismissal and the consequent obligation to reinstate the employee. Recalling that no one should be subjected to anti-union discrimination because of legitimate trade union activities and the remedy of reinstatement should be available to those who are victims of anti-union discrimination [see Compilation, para. 1163], the Committee requests the Government to ensure that, in cases of dismissal for legitimate trade union activities, the legislation provides for the possibility of reinstatement, as well as a sufficiently dissuasive compensation system. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this regard.
4. 141. Concerning the alleged limitation of the substantive scope of collective bargaining, recalling that it is for the parties concerned to decide on the subjects for negotiation [see Compilation, para. 1289], the Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on this matter.
5. 142. The Committee notes that, in its communication of 17 March 2025, the organizations allege repressive acts and violations of the fundamental rights of workers during a retirees’ protest on 12 March 2025, in which various organizations, including trade unions, human rights organizations and political parties, took part. The Committee notes that they report excessive and violent behaviour by the security forces as part of an unusual operational deployment that, combined with the subsequent legal complaint filed by the Ministry of Security for sedition, attacks against the constitutional order and democratic life, and aggravated unlawful association, had the effect of creating a climate of fear that has discouraged any form of protest. The Committee notes in this respect that: (i) despite the fact that the demonstrators were exercising their right to peaceful protest, the security forces began launching pepper gas against the first crowds of people; (ii) for more than six hours, serious repressive acts were carried out, initially by the federal security forces (Federal Police, Gendarmerie, Prefecture and Airport Security Police) attached to the Ministry of Security and subsequently by the Buenos Aires City Police, injuring 989 people. The security forces used tear gas, pepper gas, batons, shields, water cannons and rubber bullets; (iii) when the demonstrators peacefully dispersed, the security forces, without any justification whatsoever, arrested some 40 people, all trade union leaders, including the deputy secretary-general of the CTA–T. In total, 114 people were arrested, including two children aged 14 and 12 who had left school and were confined and held incommunicado for hours. They were immediately released by Judge Andrade, the presiding judge of Criminal Court No. 15 for serious, ordinary and minor offences of the City of Buenos Aires; and (iv) the judge of Federal Administrative Court No. 11 (case No. 48198/2023) stated that the events of 12 March 2025 “appear[ed] to be unbefitting of the republican principles enshrined in the national Constitution and the supranational standards that constitute the country’s supreme law” and, regarding the rally scheduled for 19 March, that the court would “closely watch with great interest everything that occur[red] there to gather, of its own motion ... all evidence of any conduct, event and/or act that [might] serve to resolve the matter at hand”.
6. 143. The Committee notes that the Government: (i) indicates that the complainants misrepresented the facts, rendering them inaccurate, insofar as the event in question was a political demonstration and was not organized by stakeholders from the world of work, and that the security forces acted proportionately; and (ii) provides information regarding the judicial and administrative proceedings relating to the reported incidents, particularly those of Federal Administrative Court No. 11 and Juvenile, Misdemeanours and Minor Offences Court of First Instance No. 3 concerning habeas corpus (case No. CAU 39860/2025-0). The Committee notes in this regard that the Government observes that the latter court rejected a collective habeas corpus petition filed by the Ombudsperson following the demonstration of 12 March 2025, pointing out that “there is insufficient evidence to consider that there exists a systematic practice of arrests without a court order or without proper justification on the grounds of the commission of a flagrant offence, in relation to children and adolescents.” While expressing its concern at the allegations brought to its attention, the Committee observes that the judge of Federal Administrative Court No. 11 declared that: (i) the events that occurred on 12 March 2025 “appear[ed] to be unbefitting of the republican principles enshrined in the national Constitution and the supranational standards that constitute the country’s supreme law”; and (ii) as he had stated in his decision of 17 March 2025, he observed the rally scheduled for 19 March, indicating that there were no abuses on the part of the security forces, and no arrests and/or injuries were reported. Observing, however, that, according to the complainants, a total of 40 trade union leaders had been arrested during the demonstration of 12 March 2025 and that more than 989 people had been injured, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that the use of the forces of order during trade union demonstrations should be limited to cases where public order is genuinely threatened and that the police authorities should be given precise instructions so that, in cases where public order is not seriously threatened, people are not arrested simply for having organized or participated in a demonstration [see Compilation, paras 229 and 230]. The Committee once again recalls that trade union organizations should conduct themselves responsibly and respect the peaceful manner in which the right of assembly should be exercised [see Compilation, para. 211]. In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the circumstances leading to the arrest of the 40 trade union leaders during the demonstration that took place on 12 March 2025 and to continue providing all court rulings in relation to that demonstration.
7. 144. Lastly, the Committee takes note of the complainants’ allegation that the Ministry of Security has filed a legal complaint for sedition, attacks against the constitutional order and democratic life, and aggravated unlawful association following the demonstration of 12 March 2025. The Committee requests the Government and the complainants to provide information in this regard.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 145. In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee requests the Government to adopt provisions, in consultation with the social partners, that afford reasonable protection to both the right of trade union organizations to protest peacefully in public and to the need to safeguard free movement of persons, for example by establishing itineraries agreed with the authorities in advance; the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to ensure, in consultation with the social partners, that the imposition of fines does not violate the right to peaceful demonstration and that, in cases of unlawful conduct, the amount is not such as to have an intimidating effect on organizations conducting legitimate trade union activities; the Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect. The Committee also requests the Government and the complainants to provide information on the court challenge against resolution No. 943/2023.
   • (c) The Committee trusts that the competent authorities will take account of the conclusions of the present case relating to the content of Decree of Necessity and Emergency No. 70/2023 (articles 86, 88 and 97). It requests the Government to ensure that any future legislative or regulatory reforms affecting labour relations are undertaken in full consultation with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations, and to provide information in this regard.
   • (d) The Committee requests the Government to provide the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice regarding the validity of Decree of Necessity and Emergency No. 70/2023, once it has been rendered.
   • (e) the Committee requests the Government to ensure that, in cases of dismissal for legitimate trade union activities, the legislation provides for the possibility of reinstatement, as well as a sufficiently dissuasive compensation system. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this regard.
   • (f) The Committee requests the Government to submit its observations regarding the substantive scope of collective bargaining.
   • (g) The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the circumstances leading to the arrest of the 40 trade union leaders during the demonstration that took place on 12 March 2025 and to continue providing all court rulings in relation to that demonstration.
   • (h) The Committee requests the Government and the complainants to provide information relating to the legal complaint for sedition, attacks against the constitutional order and democratic life, and aggravated unlawful association following the demonstration of 12 March 2025.