Cas de manquement grave (CAS) - Discussion : 2007, Publication : 96ème session CIT (2007)

Dominique

I. Observations and Information concerning Reports on ratified Conventions (Articles 22 and 35 of the Constitution)

A. Discussion of cases of serious failure by member States to respect their reporting and other standards-related obligations

(b) Failure to supply first reports on the application of ratified Conventions

A Government representative of Armenia indicated that during the 95th Session of the International Labour Con-ference, her Government had declared that it would fully implement its reporting obligations within a period of two years. It attached great importance to those obligations and was currently undertaking considerable work in that regard with technical assistance from the ILO Office, and in particular the ILO Subregional Office in Moscow, which was greatly appreciated. She informed the Conference Committee that since the 95th Session of the Conference, Armenia had submitted seven of the 14 reports requested, notably on the application of Conventions Nos 29, 81, 95, 98, 100, 105 and 122. However, she regretted the fact that the bulk of the reports had been submitted in April 2007: too late to be included in the Committee of Experts' report. In conclusion, she was pleased to announce that the remaining seven reports on Conventions Nos 17, 18, 111, 135, 151, 174 and 176 were currently being drafted and would be submitted to the ILO in the next few months. Armenia would thus clear its entire backlog on reporting before the end of 2007.

A Government representative of Gambia stated that the reports on Conventions Nos 29, 138 and 182 had been sent to the ILO but had apparently not been received. His Government would endeavour to locate copies of the reports and resend them to the ILO. If they could not be found, the reports would be rewritten. Since the Employment Division of the Ministry had only one member of staff, ILO technical assistance would be greatly appreciated on those and other issues.

A Government representative of Serbia stated that all state institutions were fully dedicated to fulfilling their country's constitutional obligations. However, two circumstances had had an impact on the failure to submit reports since 2003 and 2005. With regard to the period before May 2006, due to its constitutional particularities, lack of functionality and coherence of public governance had characterized the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. After both republics became independent, Serbia had faced a new challenge, notably on how to undertake the necessary institutional transformations in order to meet international obligations in the most effective way. That was still ongoing. The other aspect concerned Serbia's interest in protecting labour standards in the sectors covered by the Conventions concerned. After the dissolution of the State Union with Montenegro, Serbia became a landlocked country. As a result, attention had to be paid to the relevant sectors and legislation. However, those developments had been duly taken into account in the context of the obligations arising from ILO membership. A consultative process with the line ministries had recently been initiated and the Government would consider carefully the reports on the application of all ratified Conventions. In conclusion, the speaker paid a special tribute to the ILO Subregional Office in Budapest for offering very useful assistance on reporting obligations, among other matters. Government experts had also participated in the course on international labour standards held in Turin and Geneva, and Serbia very much appreciated that help. Serbia was looking forward to participating in other training programmes and benefiting from further ILO technical assistance in order to fulfil its reporting obligations more efficiently.

A Government representative of The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia stated that since the last session of the Conference, his Government had been seriously engaged in clearing the reporting backlog with the assistance of the ILO. Since the beginning of the session, reports on Conventions Nos 87 and 98 had been submitted. Reports on Conventions Nos 105 and 182 were being prepared and would be ready by September 2007 at the latest.

The Committee noted the information and explanations provided by the Government representatives who took the floor and reiterated the crucial importance of submitting first reports on the application of ratified Conventions. The Committee recalled that the Office's technical assistance was available to the Governments concerned to contribute to the fulfilment of this obligation. The Committee decided to mention the following cases in the appropriate section of the General Report: since 1992 - Liberia (Convention No. 133); since 1995 - Armenia (Convention No. 111), Kyrgyzstan (Convention No. 133); since 1996 - Armenia (Conventions Nos 135, 151); since 1998 - Armenia (Convention No. 174), Equatorial Guinea (Conventions Nos 68, 92); since 1999 - Turkmenistan (Conventions Nos 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111); since 2001 - Armenia (Convention No. 176); since 2002 - Gambia (Conventions Nos 29, 105, 138), Saint Kitts and Nevis (Conventions Nos 87, 98), Saint Lucia (Conventions Nos 154, 158, 182); since 2003 - Dominica (Convention No. 182), Gambia (Convention No. 182), Iraq (Conventions Nos 172, 182), Serbia (Conventions Nos 27, 113, 114); since 2004 - Antigua and Barbuda (Conventions Nos 122, 131, 135, 142, 144, 150, 151, 154, 155, 158, 161, 182), Dominica (Conventions Nos 144, 169), The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Convention No. 182); and since 2005 - Albania (Conventions Nos 174, 175, 176), Antigua and Barbuda (Convention No. 100), Armenia (Convention No. 17), Liberia (Conventions Nos 81, 144, 150, 182), Serbia (Conventions Nos 8, 16, 22, 23, 53, 56, 69, 73, 74), The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Convention No. 105), Uganda (Convention No. 138).

------------------

(d) Written information received up to the end of the meeting of the Committee on the Application of Standards (Endnote_1)

Bahamas. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.

Bosnia and Herzegovina. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent the first reports on Conventions Nos. 105 and 182.

Botswana. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.

Burkina Faso. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.

Côte d'Ivoire. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent the first report on Convention No. 138.

Dominica. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.

Eritrea. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to all of the Committee's comments.

Estonia. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to all of the Committee's comments.

Grenada. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to all of the Committee's comments.

Indonesia. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to all of the Committee's comments.

Islamic Republic of Iran. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.

Kazakhstan. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.

Republic of Korea. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.

Malta. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to all of the Committee's comments.

Papua New Guinea. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to all of the Committee's comments.

Saint Kitts and Nevis. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent one of the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions.

San Marino. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent some of the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions.

Sao Tome and Principe. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent the majority of the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions as well as replies to most of the Committee's comments.

South Africa. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to all of the Committee's comments.

Swaziland. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.

United Republic of Tanzania. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent some of the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions as well as replies to most of the Committee's comments.

Trinidad and Tobago. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.

United Kingdom (Montserrat). Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent some of the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions.

Endnote 1

The list of the reports received is to be found in Part Two of the Report: Appendix I