Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Hungary (Ratification: 1957)

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2025, Publication: 113rd ILC session (2025)

Written information provided by the Government

The Government is committed to the full implementation of the Convention and to safeguarding freedom of association and the right to organize, as well as to the protection of workers’ rights.

The legal system provides adequate guarantees for the freedom to exercise trade union rights. The Government holds regular consultations with the national-level representative organizations of workers and employers on matters concerning the world of work, and remains open to adopting justified measures to respond to possible deficiencies in legal practice.

The Government considers the effective functioning of the ILO supervisory mechanism to be of great importance. In this context, it submits its national report to the ILO each year on the implementation of the relevant ratified Conventions and Recommendations, and it remains open to consultations with the ILO.

Regrettably, the Government has failed to provide a detailed response to the Committee of Experts’ observations regarding the implementation of the Convention during the 2024 national reporting cycle. This written reply aims to remedy that omission and to reaffirm the Government’s willingness and commitment to further national-level dialogue on the matters raised in the Committee’s observations.

As for the consultations held with the social partners, it should be noted that the Permanent Consultation Forum of the Private Sector and the Government (VKF) was established in 2012 and has since become a prominent platform for social dialogue. Following consultations with the social partners, the rules governing the organization and functioning of the VKF were formally codified by government decree in 2024. The activities of the VKF focus primarily on wage policy, employment policy and general issues concerning the world of work. Negotiations on the minimum wage and the guaranteed minimum wage also take place within this forum. The Government provides substantial financial support to national social partners from both the national budget and European Union funds.

Freedom of expression

Freedom of expression is considered a fundamental right protected and ensured by numerous international, European and national legal instruments. In Hungary, the entire legal system serves to protect fundamental rights, including freedom of expression.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article IX of Hungary’s Fundamental Law state that everyone has the right to freedom of expression. However, it is clear from current regulations that this fundamental right is not absolute and may be restricted under certain conditions. Regarding the restriction of freedom of expression, Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article IX(4) of the Fundamental Law provide guidance.

Judicial practice is also of great significance in assessing this fundamental right, as numerous decisions have been made by the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union, as well as at national level, including the Constitutional Court. These decisions define the concept, limits and criteria for assessing freedom of expression in the context of various personality rights.

In accordance with Article 10(2) of the European Convention, the European Court of Human Rights has established the criteria under which national authorities of the contracting States may restrict freedom of expression.

The fundamental right may be restricted if all of the following three conditions are met:

• (1) The interference – whether a “formal requirement”, “condition”, “restriction”, or “penalty” – is prescribed by law;
• (2) The interference must have a legitimate aim (for example, national security, territorial integrity, public safety, prevention of disorder or crime, protection of health or morals, protection of the reputation or rights of others; preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary);
• (3) The interference is necessary in a democratic society, meaning that the necessity and proportionality test must be applied.

As a first step, there must be an examination to determine whether there is a legal basis for the interference and whether such a law is publicly accessible, comprehensible, consistent and predictable. Regarding workers’ expressions of opinion, Hungarian regulations clearly define the reference points in Act I, section 8 and section 9(2), of the 2012 Labour Code. Section 8 of the Labour Code also defines the legitimate aim of the interference, namely the protection of the employer’s reputation and legitimate economic interests. The third criterion of the necessity and proportionality test involves the determination of the extent to which the restriction qualifies as a necessary measure in a democratic society. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights shows general respect for the contracting States’ margin of appreciation in assessing whether, given the circumstances, the disputed interference was necessary.

The Constitutional Court in its Decision 30/1992 (V.26.) AB, stated that “freedom of expression has a privileged role among constitutional fundamental rights; it is essentially the mother right of various freedom rights” and emphasized that “the distinguished role of the right of freedom of expression does not mean that this right is […] unrestricted”.

Courts apply the necessity and proportionality test during restrictions. There are relatively few decisions examining this fundamental right within an employment relationship, but the Constitutional Court has stated the need to consider the specific nature of employment.

In labour law, the Constitutional Court uses the so-called “loyalty clause” as a standard, which appears in section 8(1)–(3) of the Labour Code. The Court stipulates that freedom of expression may be subject to stricter limitations in the world of work.

The Constitutional Court has identified the factors that courts must consider when assessing the restriction of workers’ freedom of expression, in addition to the general necessity and proportionality test:

• (1) the public or professional relevance of the statement;
• (2) the factual basis of the statement and its evaluative value judgments;
• (3) the harm caused by the statement and its negative impact on the employer’s reputation;
• (4) the good faith of the employee exercising freedom of expression;
• (5) the severity of the disciplinary consequence imposed by the employer.

From the case law of both courts, it is evident that the provisions set out in the Labour Code are consistent with the possibility of restricting the fundamental right. The courts have also recognized that freedom of expression manifests differently in the context of employment relationships due to their unique nature. Employment is a trust-based legal relationship, typically involving long-term cooperation between the parties. Employers and workers form a shared interest in dealings with external parties, in which the employer may find itself in a vulnerable position. During employment, the worker may gain access to information critical to the functioning of the employment relationship, which, if misused, could harm the employer’s economic interests. To protect these interests, section 8(1) of the Labour Code stipulates that during the employment relationship the worker – unless so authorized by the relevant legislation – shall not engage in any conduct by which to jeopardize the legitimate economic interests of the employer. This restriction is limited to the duration of the employment relationship. However, under section 8(2) of the Labour Code, outside their paid working hours, the worker must also refrain from any conduct – stemming from the worker’s job or position in the employer’s hierarchy – that directly and factually has the potential to damage the employer’s reputation, legitimate economic interest or the intended purpose of the employment relationship. This rule is also not unlimited. To ensure proportionality and a legitimate aim, the worker’s conduct must be assessed based on their job or position in the employer’s hierarchy, and the conduct must directly and factually be capable of harming the employer’s reputation, legitimate economic interest or the intended purpose of the employment relationship. Additionally, as a further guarantee protecting the worker, the employer is required to inform the worker in writing about the restriction in advance.

Section 8(3) of the Labour Code explicitly refers to the restriction of the exercise of the right to freedom of expression. However, the provision also sets out the legitimate grounds for such a restriction, in the interest of the protection of certain rights. Judicial practice confirms that fundamental rights cannot be exercised to the detriment of other rights, and the referenced subsection identifies the rights that may conflict with freedom of expression in employment relationships, namely the employer’s reputation, and legitimate economic and organizational interests. Furthermore, the provision clarifies that expression of opinion is not allowed only when it is seriously offensive and jeopardizes the protection of the above rights, hence the proportionality test.

In an employment relationship, the worker performs work in the interest of the employer, considering the employer’s economic interests. Consequently, the worker’s autonomy is inevitably diminished during the fulfilment of employment duties.

This is most evident in the fact that the employer decides the work schedules, thereby affecting the worker’s right to rest. Section 9(2) of the Labour Code thus allows for the restriction of the worker’s personal rights only where strictly necessary for reasons directly related to the intended purpose of the employment relationship and where proportionate for the achievement of the objective. Therefore, the legal regulation does not grant the employer unlimited rights to restrictions. In order to protect the worker’s interests, the employer is required to inform the worker in advance and in writing about the manner, conditions and expected duration of the restriction of personal rights, as well as the circumstances justifying its necessity and proportionality.

The current regulation respects the fact that personal rights may only be restricted in exceptional cases. Therefore, section 9(3) of the Labour Code stipulates that a worker may not waive their personal rights in a general and advance manner, and any legal statement concerned with the personal rights is only valid if made in writing.

In summary, the above-mentioned provisions of the Labour Code comply with the criteria (necessity–proportionality test, cases of permissible restrictions on freedom of expression) established by the European Court of Human Rights – and adopted by the Hungarian Constitutional Court – which allow for the limitation of a fundamental right within a clear and appropriate framework. The current regulation ensures the rights of both employers and workers by considering the unique nature of employment relationships.

Registration of Trade Unions (Article 2)

According to section 69 of Act CLXXXI of 2011 on the court registration of civil organizations and the related procedural rules (hereinafter: Cnytv.), the provisions of this Act shall apply to trade unions unless another law governing the organization provides otherwise. Since no other law regulates the registration of trade unions, the rules applicable to associations – of which trade unions are a special form – shall govern their registration.

Under section 34(1) of the Cnytv., a simplified procedure is available (where the court must decide on the registration within 15 days), if the founding document submitted is based on a standard template as defined in legislation. These templates are provided by Decree No. 4/2017 (IV.3.) of the Minister of Justice on the standard statutes to be used in simplified registration and amendment procedures of civil organizations and sports associations. These templates may be used not only for initial registration but also for subsequent filings of amendments.

The main rules on organizational and operational structures are set out in Act V of 2013 on the Civil Code (hereinafter: Ptk.). According to these rules, it is sufficient to include only the basic data of the association in its statutes. The court only reviews the minimum statutory requirements, which means no request for correction may be issued due to minor administrative deficiencies.

The Cnytv. also establishes that during the amendment registration procedure of an association, the court only examines the documents relevant to the specific amendment. Consequently, the court may not raise objections regarding parts of the statutes not affected by the modification.

Under the current legislation (section 2(2) of the Cnytv. and section 3:63 of the Civil Code), civil organizations – including trade unions – are required to provide proof of entitlement to use the registered office as a condition for registration.

According to section 21(1a) of the Cnytv., proof of entitlement to use the registered office must include a declaration – contained in at least a private document with full evidentiary force – by the property owner or lawful user authorized to grant further use, consenting to the use of the property as the organization’s registered headquarters. If the organization itself owns the property, a copy of the ownership certificate must be attached to the application.

The requirement for the inclusion of the company’s name in the official name of the association cannot be derived from legislation. Section 4(1) of the Cnytv. explicitly states that the trade union (as a specific form of association) is not required to include reference to the type or form of association in its name. Furthermore, a trade union may be established and may operate under a name that includes other expressions indicating the exercise of the right of association.

As noted in the Committee of Expert‘s observations, between 1 June 2017 and 31 May 2021 a total of 1,149 trade unions were registered and eight registration applications were rejected. The detailed data for the period 2021–25 is currently being collected. Once available, it will be submitted to the Committee.

The Government takes note of the views expressed by the Committee of Experts and the request to the Government to take the necessary measures to effectively address in practice the alleged obstacles to registration. At the same time, we note that apart from the previous observations submitted by the Workers’ group – indicating that the legal requirements for trade union registration may hinder the implementation of Article 2 of the Convention – the Government is currently not aware of any specific cases or legal practice in which the existing legal framework has effectively prevented the registration of any particular trade union. Furthermore, we wish to highlight that the VKF held nine meetings in 2022, ten in 2023 and nine in 2024. These sessions provided an opportunity for the Workers’ group to raise any such concerns.

The right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration (Article 3)

The establishment and operation of trade unions are regulated by Act CLXXV of 2011 on the right of association, public benefit status and the operation and support of civil organizations (hereinafter: Ectv.), as well as Act V of 2013 on the Civil Code.

According to section 15(1) of the Ectv., the registered data of trade unions is public. However, pursuant to section 15(3), the membership registry is not public due to the protection of personal rights. Within the framework of legality supervision proceedings, the prosecutor’s office is entitled to full access to documents [Ectv. section 15(4)]. As in the case of any other association, the prosecutor has the right to initiate legal proceedings against a trade union where a law has been violated and the corresponding claim is based on the protection of public interest. There is deemed to be a violation of public interest if the prosecutor identifies an error in the registry data in the motion. However, a deficiency or error in the founding document that does not affect registry data does not constitute a violation of public interest and therefore does not provide grounds for the prosecutor to file a claim.

Under Article 29(1) of Hungary’s Fundamental Law, the prosecutor’s office acts to protect the public interest and ensures that unlawful conditions are remedied. As defined in section 1(2) of Act CLXIII of 2011 on the prosecutor’s office, the prosecutor’s office contributes to ensuring compliance with laws and, in cases and procedures defined by law, acts to uphold legality when a violation occurs.

The powers of the prosecutor’s office do not imply general supervisory or review authority, nor operational control over the activities of trade unions. The prosecutor is only entitled to act if there is a clear violation of the law and, even in such a case, action is taken through court proceedings, not by direct administrative measures.

The Government emphasizes that the alleged practices referred to in the Committee of Experts’ comments do not correspond to the applicable Hungarian legal framework, and they do not form part of the lawful prosecutorial oversight. In the event of unlawful prosecutorial action, legal remedies are available. Specific legal disputes can be initiated in response to specific violations.

In the coming period, the Government intends to engage in consultations with the Prosecutor General’s Office of Hungary regarding the practices affecting trade unions, as raised by the Workers’ group.

Deduction of union membership fee

In 2023 in the VKF, the parties discussed the initiative related to the deduction of trade union membership fees on two occasions. During the negotiations, the relevant Government representatives emphasized that the primary objective of the related legislative amendments was to reduce administrative burdens on employers. According to section 1 of Act XXIX of 1991 on the voluntary payment of trade union membership fees by employees, the general rule is that the employer – with the exception of cases specified by law – is obliged, upon the worker’s written request, to deduct the trade union or other representative body membership fee from the worker’s wages and to transfer the specified amount to the trade union or other workers’ representation body indicated by the worker. According to the Government, the provisions concerning trade union membership fees in the status laws affecting certain public sectors do not disadvantage the workers and do not adversely affect the functioning of trade unions.

The right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities

According to section 4(3) of the Strike Act, the extent and conditions of minimum (“sufficient”) services may be determined by law, and this is indeed the case in sectors providing the most essential public services. The general framework provisions of the Strike Act only apply in the absence of specific legal regulations, in which case the parties must reach an agreement on the extent and conditions of minimum service during the mandatory pre-strike conciliation process.

With regard to amendments to the Strike Act, in recent years consultations have taken place on several occasions within the framework of the VKF. Within the Monitoring Committee of the VKF, thematic working groups were established. Among these, the working group for the amendment of the Strike Act held its first meeting on 19 March 2015, followed by several further meetings later that year.

With regard to the determination of minimum services, the Government has consistently upheld the position that guidance must come from the joint position of the social partners, and it attaches particular importance to the development of a unified position on the part of the trade unions.

To date, however, no joint proposal has been formulated by the social partners regarding minimum (i.e. “sufficient”) services and therefore the issue of amending the Strike Act has not yet been placed on the agenda following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Discussion by the Committee

Chairperson – It is now my honour to invite the distinguished representative of the Government of Hungary, Ambassador, Permanent Representative of Hungary to the United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva, to take the floor.

Government representative – The Government of Hungary remains fully committed to the values and principles of the International Labour Organization (ILO), and in particular, to the fundamental rights and principles of the world of work also enshrined in the Convention, which Hungary ratified in 1957.

The Government regularly consults and engages in open dialogue with Hungarian social partners on matters concerning the world work and remains open to adopting justified measures to address any shortcomings in legal practice.

In recent years, the Permanent Consultation Forum of the Private Sector and the Government (VKF) has played an essential role in shaping labour policies and legislation, as well as promoting social partnership in Hungary. It held nine meetings in 2022, ten in 2023 and nine in 2024.

The Government promotes industrial relations through capacity-building programmes and awareness-raising initiatives for both workers and employers at national and local level.

The Government is also strongly committed to effectively cooperating with the Office as well as to completely fulfilling its duties as a Member of the ILO. We consider the effective functioning of the ILO supervisory mechanism to be of great importance. This supervisory system is unique at international level. The aim of the supervision is to regularly examine the application of standards in the Member States and to point out areas where there are problems in application or where they could be better applied. The credibility of the system, however, should be ensured by providing real professional background and reasoning for the supervisory work and not be used for political purposes. This is also crucial from the perspective of the ILO as a whole.

Hungary submits its national reports to the ILO each year, and we are open to consultations with the ILO. However, we acknowledge the lack of detailed responses to the Committee of Experts’ observations on the implementation of the Convention in the previous national reporting cycle.

Before the start of this session of the Conference, we provided written information to the Committee and reaffirmed our willingness and commitment to further national level dialogue on the matters raised in the Committee of Experts’ observations. Today we would like to present briefly to the Committee Hungarian legislation and practice, as well as our reactions to the Committee of Experts’ observations.

First of all, the Hungarian legal system provides adequate guarantees for freedom of association and the right to organize. These rights are guaranteed by the Hungarian Fundamental Law. Article 8 of the Fundamental Law specifically mentions trade unions, stating that trade unions may be freely formed and operate on the basis of the right of association. These provisions are further elaborated in the Act on the Labour Code, which governs employment relationships.

In line with the Convention, trade unions in Hungary are recognized as independent legal entities, free to define their internal structure, adopt their own rules, and manage their activities without interference from public authorities or employers.

In Hungary, freedom of expression is considered as a fundamental right protected and ensured by numerous international, European and national legal instruments. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and article 9 of the Hungarian Fundamental Law state that everyone has the right to freedom of expression. However, it is clear from current regulations that this fundamental right is not absolute and may be restricted under certain conditions.

In judicial practice, numerous decisions have been made by the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union, as well as by the Hungarian Constitutional Court. These decisions define the concept, limits, and criteria for assessing freedom of expression.

The Hungarian Constitutional Court stated that “freedom of expression has a privileged role among constitutional fundamental rights”; however, this role does not mean that this right is unrestricted. The Constitutional Court has also stated the need to consider the specific nature of employment and in labour law it uses the so-called “loyalty clause” as a standard, which appears in section 8 of the Labour Code. The court stipulates that freedom of expression may be subject to stricter limitations in the world of work and has identified the factors that courts must consider when assessing restrictions, in addition to the general necessity and proportionality test.

From the case law of both the European and national courts, it is evident that the provisions of the Labour Code comply with the criteria established for the limitation of freedom of expression within a clear and appropriate framework and by considering the unique nature of employment relationships.

Secondly, on the registration of trade unions. According to the Act on the right of association, public benefit status, and the operation and support of civil organizations, the trade union is a special form of association. Trade unions are established as legal entities and by registration with the court. It is sufficient to include only the basic data of the association in its statutes and the court only reviews the minimum statutory requirements. This means no request for correction may be issued due to minor administrative deficiencies. The Government takes note of the views and requests expressed by the Committee of Experts. At the same time, we note that apart from the previous observations submitted by the Workers’ group, the Government is currently not aware of any specific cases or legal practice in which the existing legal framework has effectively prevented the registration of any trade union.

Thirdly, on the power of national prosecutors to control trade union activities. According to the Hungarian Fundamental Law, the Prosecutor’s Office acts to protect the public interest and ensures that unlawful conditions are remedied. The powers of the prosecution do not constitute a general supervisory or controlling authority; they do not imply control over the activities, and in no way do they extend to the operational management of trade unions. Therefore, the Government emphasizes that the alleged practices referred to in the Committee of Experts’ observation do not correspond to the applicable Hungarian legal framework. In the coming period, the Government intends to engage in consultations with the Prosecutor General’s Office of Hungary regarding the practices affecting trade unions, as raised by the Workers’ group.

Fourthly, on the deduction of the union membership fee. According to the Act on the voluntary payment of trade union membership fees by workers, the general rule is that the employer is obliged – upon the worker’s written request – to deduct the trade union or other representative body membership fee from the worker’s wages and to transfer the specified amount to the trade union or other workers’ representation body indicated by the worker. As a derogation from the general rule, and with the aim to reduce administrative burdens on employers, special rules are applicable in given public sectors for employees, which prohibit the deduction of membership fees. In our view, these provisions do not conflict with the Convention and do not adversely affect employees or the functioning of trade unions.

In 2023, the VKF held discussions on the issue of trade union membership fees on two occasions. The Hungarian National ILO Council, referred to by the Workers’ group, is not entitled to hold tripartite negotiations on general economic and labour-related issues. As the representatives of the Government in the National ILO Council have indicated several times, the Council was established and operates in line with the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), and provides a tripartite forum for discussion with respect to matters concerning the activities of the ILO.

Finally, regarding the observations on the Strike Act and the definition of minimum service, we provide the following information. In recent years, several consultations have been taking place within the VKF regarding the possible modification of the Strike Act. A thematic working group has been set up to deal with this issue. The Government is open to continue the discussions related to the Strike Act. However, we are of the view that, in this matter, a unified position of the trade unions is of crucial importance.

Worker members – Freedom of association is that right which allows workers’ and employers’ organizations to control their own formation, their own decision-making processes and their own speech. To express these rights freely is the only way social dialogue and the pursuit of social justice are meaningful – the only means of improving conditions of labour, establishing peace and sustained progress. Freedom of association and the right to organize is therefore an enabling right as well as a right in itself.

Hungary ratified this Convention in 1957. We are discussing this case in the Committee for the first time. The Committee of Experts has made ten observations, and the recent ones are from 2015, 2017, 2021, 2022 and 2024.

Sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code of 2012 prohibit conduct, including the exercise of the right to express an opinion, whether during or outside working time, that may affect the employer’s reputation or economic and organizational interests. The Committee of Experts has expressed deep concern that the Government of Hungary has not taken any measures to ensure that these sections of the Labour Code do not impede freedom of expression in the exercise of trade union rights.

We must recall that whereas the Convention expects workers and employers and their respective organizations to respect the law of the land, the obligation on the State is to ensure that the law of the land shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so applied as to impair, the guarantees provided for in this Convention.

The free expression of opinions, including during disputes with employers, is a core element of freedom of association and therefore worthy of the protections of the Convention. The maintenance of these provisions in labour legislation goes wholly against this.

Furthermore, the Government’s claim that the matter has been addressed as part of a discussion held in 2021 is disputed by our trade union colleagues who say that the discussion held in 2021 did not amount to a consultation.

We urge the Government to immediately amend these provisions without further delay through meaningful consultations with the social partners.

Secondly, there is the issue of excessive requirements and practical obstacles to the registration of trade unions. The Committee of Experts has expressed deep regret that nothing has been done in this regard.

We recall that workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, to join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization.

The refusal of registration due to minor flaws, the imposition of the obligation of including the company’s name in the official name of associations, and the difficulties created for, or encountered by, trade unions because of the obligation to bring their by-laws into line with the Civil Code, is contrary to the obligations of the Government under the Convention.

These formalities should not become an obstacle to the exercise of legitimate trade union activities, nor should they allow for undue discretionary power to deny or delay the establishment of such organizations.

We join the Committee of Experts in strongly urging the Government to engage without delay, in consultations with representative organizations of employers and workers, to assess the need to simplify the registration requirements and to effectively address the obstacles to registration in practice. Information from the Government in this regard will be necessary, including statistics on the number of registrations and refusals to register trade unions.

Thirdly, workers’ and employers’ organizations have the right to organize their own administration and activities and to formulate their programmes and the public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede its lawful exercise. And yet, we are deeply concerned with the powers given to the national prosecutors to control trade union activities.

We understand that the national prosecutor has the power to review general and ad hoc decisions of unions, conduct inspections directly or through other State bodies, and enjoy free and unlimited access to trade union offices. In exercising this power, prosecutors have questioned the lawfulness of trade union operations several times, requested numerous documents and ordered additional reports if dissatisfied with the unions’ financial reporting.

These powers and how they are exercised on trade unions to interfere, impair and restrict the exercise of trade union rights does not comply with the Government’s obligations under the Convention. As a matter of urgency, the Government must address this concern in consultation with the social partners.

We also raise the issue of the legislative amendments which introduced changes to the check-off system and which prohibit employers from deducting or transferring union dues from the wages of public employees. According to the Government, in 2024, section 1 of Act XXIX of 1991 on the Voluntary Nature of Membership Fees in Workers’ Representative Organizations and section 12/A of Act XXXIII of 1992 on the Legal Status of Public Employees were amended to ensure that employers are no longer permitted to deduct union membership fees from employees’ wages or transfer these fees to trade unions.

The Committee of Experts indicated that, from the amended text of section 1 of Act XXIX of 1991, employers are obliged, except where otherwise stipulated by law, to deduct from employees’ wages trade union dues upon receiving a written request from the employee and transfer them to the trade union concerned. According to section 12/A of Act XXXIII of 1992, however, notwithstanding Act XXIX of 1991, employers are prohibited from deducting or transferring such dues from the wages of public employees.

We recall, in light of the Convention, that workers should have the possibility of opting for deductions from their wages under the check-off system to be paid to trade union organizations of their choice. This is the essence of the right to form or join a trade union of one’s choice.

We strongly urge the Government to attend to this matter without delay and to provide information on the outcome.

There are also aspects of our concerns dealing with amending the Strike Act, the Passenger Transport Service Act and the Postal Services Act to ensure that workers’ organizations may participate in defining a minimum service and may refer the matter to a joint or independent body in case of disagreement. The Government must take all necessary measures to amend without delay this legislation in consultation with the social partners.

To conclude, I must reiterate, after 80 years or so of recognition of this right, that freedom of association is an enabling right. We urge the Government to guarantee its foundational protections in law and practice.

Employer members – We thank the Government of Hungary for the oral and written information on this case, of which we have fully taken note. The Employer members address the importance of States’ compliance relating to the application of this ratified ILO core Convention. The Convention was ratified by Hungary in 1957. Since 1989, the Committee of Experts has issued ten observations, and this case has not been discussed in the Committee before. The Government provided written information which was published on 19 May 2025. This case is about specific provisions which regulate the exercise of freedom of association.

First, about sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code: The Employers’ group would like to stress that the Convention covers workers’ and employers’ organizations. We note that in 2021, a discussion was held and that the publication addressing interpretive questions on trade unions’ right to freedom of expression was issued in 2022. However, according to the Committee of Experts, the discussions held in 2021 did not amount to a consultation. We ask the Government to consult with the social partners and to discuss this issue without undue delay.

Second, on the question of the registration of trade unions: According to section 69 of the 2011 Act on the court registration of civil organizations and the related procedural rules, the provisions of this Act apply to trade unions unless another law governing the organization provides otherwise. The main rules on organizational and operational structures are set out in Act V of the 2013 Civil Code.

The Committee of Experts expressed concerns about the requirements in relation to union headquarters, the refusal of registration due to flaws, the obligation of including the company’s name in the name of associations and the obligation to bring the by-laws into line with the Civil Code.

The Employer members would like to recall that according to Article 2 of the Convention, workers and employers without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and subject only to the rules of the organization concerned to join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization.

The Committee of Experts recalled that, although the formalities of registration allow for official recognition of workers’ or employers’ organizations, these formalities should not become an obstacle to the exercise of legitimate activities of employers’ and workers’ organizations. Furthermore, they should not allow for undue discretionary power to deny or delay the establishment of such organizations.

On the one hand, we note with concern that the Government failed to provide a reply to the 2017 allegations, but on the other hand, we welcome the fact that the Government provided detailed information on 19 May 2025.

According to the Government, between 1 June 2017 and 31 May 2021, a total of 1,149 trade unions were registered and eight registration applications were rejected.

The Employer members ask the Government to provide detailed information on the number of registered organizations and the number of organizations whose registration was denied or delayed, including details on the grounds for refusal of registration for the period 2021 to 2025, as soon as possible. Furthermore, we recommend that the Government start without undue delay consultations with the representative organizations of employers and workers, to assess the requirements with the aim of applying the obligations of Article 2 of the Convention in law and practice.

Third, on the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their administration: According to Article 3 of the Convention, workers’ and employers’ organizations have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes. The public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof. According to the reports, trade union activities were restricted by the power of national prosecutors conducting inspections directly or through State bodies and enjoying free and unlimited access to trade union offices. Taking into account the request of the Committee of Experts, the Employer members expect the Government to respond to the allegations and to provide detailed information on the type of inquiries conducted by prosecutors.

Fourth, on the deduction of union membership fees: In 2024, the law was amended to ensure that employers are no longer permitted to deduct union membership fees from employees’ wages or transfer these fees to trade unions. The Government argued that they had discussions on the issue of union membership fees with the VKF. However, the outcome of these discussions was not publicly available. The Employer members ask the Government to provide detailed information on the outcome of the discussions on union membership fees within the VKF.

Fifth, on the Strike Act. We wish to reiterate that in our view neither the Convention nor other Conventions contain rules on the right to strike.

To conclude, the Employers’ group asks the Government first to provide without undue delay the requested information on the various issues. Second, to start a process of social dialogue with the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations to examine the aforementioned points. And third, to provide information on the progress and all measures taken in this respect.

Worker member, Hungary – First, I would like to thank the Hungarian Government for the information provided to us today. In the last decade, Hungarian trade unions have met new legislation which has caused difficulties in exercising the fundamental right to freedom of association. We made many observations on these issues under the ordinary supervisory mechanism of the ILO and filed special complaints, too. However, there were no answers to them by the Government, neither to the Committee of Experts, nor to us at home. We still experience difficulties in the registration of trade unions, in exercising our right to freedom of expression, in the deduction of member fees from salaries, and in the determination of the level of minimum service in public transport.

As for freedom of expression, the Labour Code of 2012 limits the rights of workers to free opinion. The wording of this limitation is rather general and broad (the opinion may not jeopardize the employer’s reputation or legitimate economic and organizational interests), causing a lot of interpretation problems even for the courts, including the Hungarian Constitutional and Supreme Court. Moreover, the judicial interpretations are very complicated, and sometimes – as recognized even by lawyers – controversial.

This shows that the legal situation is now rather uncertain, while the sanctions for a legally – maybe – not correct opinion can be very serious: the termination of the employment relationship and payment of damages. This kind of law and practice can therefore threaten, or sometimes kill the exercise of the right to free expression in the workplace.

The Committee of Experts noted in its report that the Government has not taken any concrete steps, including legislative ones, to guarantee that the law does not impede the freedom of expression of workers and the exercise of the mandate of trade unions and their leaders to defend the occupational interests of their members.

Today, after more than ten years, reference to judicial decisions or legal studies is not enough. We need clear legal regulation with clear limitations and a clear determination of the content of this right, which really can ensure the exercise of this universal human right, rather than prevent trade unions from fully defending the occupational interests of their members or rely only on the loyalty obligations of workers.

Registration of trade unions in Hungary is not a simple formality, but rather a legal procedure before the court. Today in Hungary, it is much easier and faster to register a company than a trade union. Without lawyers, it is hardly possible for a newly established trade union to fit all criteria prescribed by law. Just a few examples of this: even to find the relevant regulations, one has to know the legal status of a trade union, because the laws concerned can be found under words such as civil organizations, associations or legal persons, but not under trade unions. To be registered, it is obligatory to fill in a 73-page application form accompanied by a 23-page explanatory document, which includes the criteria for all the different kinds of civil organizations. So trade unions first have to choose or find those points which concern them specifically.

Trade unions, moreover, have to annex a lot of verifications and other documents to the application, including proof of entitlement to use their office and a declaration from the property owner or lawful user to allow this use. There are also special legal regulations to verify the lawfulness of the chosen name of the trade union. All of the documents submitted to the court have to be at least private documents with full evidentiary force.

During the registration procedure, the court examines the statute of the trade union, checking whether its articles are in line with the regulations of the Civil Code and of other laws.

A simplified registration procedure is available for trade unions if their statute is based on a standard template as defined in the legislation, resulting in standard trade unions. However, if trade unions would like to change anything, even only one word in the template, the simplified procedure cannot be used.

Hungarian trade unions have signalled many times the above-mentioned difficulties at meetings of the tripartite National ILO Council which was established specifically for ILO matters and have also filed observations under the ordinary ILO supervisory mechanism. However, there has been no meaningful simplification of the registration procedure.

Concerning deduction of member fees, a new law in Hungary, in force from 1 January 2024, prohibits public sector employers from deducting trade union member fees from the salaries of civil servants, teachers, as well as healthcare and social sector workers, and transferring them to their trade unions. This prohibition is absolute: the employees/civil servants concerned and their trade unions are not even allowed to conclude individual or collective agreements to continue using the check-off system, which they could enjoy until this year.

Social partners were not involved in the preparation of the draft law, and while trade unions protested strongly against the new law, their interests and voices were not heard, not taken into consideration.

The official justification for the law was the reduction of the administrative burden on employers. However, during the previous three decades, the check-off system functioned well and smoothly, without making distinctions between public and private employers and employees or civil servants. In the private sector, the check-off system is still available.

The new law did not allow enough time for trade unions to prepare themselves for this huge change, how to organize the collection of member fees or how to ensure extra capacity to tackle this new administrative burden imposed solely on trade unions by the law.

Member fees, particularly at the workplace level, are the most important source of income for trade unions. Only after about half a year, many trade unions had already experienced the harmful effects of the new legislation: some of them lost many paying members and – according to recent data – their income also decreased significantly, while their administrative costs increased. Consequently, the new law weakened trade unions and their capacity without any reasonable or necessary cause in the public sector.

Concerning minimum service in the public passenger transport sector, since 2012, legal regulations have determined that the level of minimum service during strike actions is 66 per cent. It was never verified by the legislator that this level is really the strictly necessary minimum in the sector. In their observations to the ILO, trade unions argued that this level cannot guarantee the effectiveness of a strike. However, this level has not been changed by the legislator. A new modification of the Public Transport Act from 9 May 2025 made the determination of minimum service more difficult and controversial. So the situation became not better, but worse. To expect a unified position in this matter from workers and employers is simply not realistic.

In conclusion, we urge the Government to take every legislative and other necessary step, after really meaningful consultation with the social partners, to bring the Hungarian law and practice on the above-mentioned issues and points fully into line with the Convention, without any further delay. We also request the technical assistance of the ILO on this.

Employer member, Hungary – The Hungarian employers recognize the importance of the Convention and its implementation, and fully respect the effective functioning of the ILO supervisory mechanism. Therefore, we very much regret that the Government of Hungary has failed to provide a detailed response to the Committee of Experts’ request for observations regarding the implementation of the Convention during the 2024 national reporting cycle. At the same time, we are most pleased that the Government, both in writing and orally right here and now, has reaffirmed its willingness and commitment to further national-level dialogue on the matters raised in the Committee of Experts’ observations. In spite of this, we are very sorry to see Hungary shortlisted due to the allegation of noncompliance with this Convention.

We respect freedom of expression as a fundamental right, which may be limited by the fundamental rights of others. According to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, the exercise of this freedom may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, or for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence.

In our view, in the employment world, sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code set those limits on freedom of expression when they prohibit workers from engaging in any conduct, including the exercise of their right to express an opinion, whether during or outside working time, that may jeopardize the employer’s reputation or legitimate economic and organizational interests. To our understanding, the legislation is balanced. In these sections, there is no general prohibition on expressing an opinion about the employer. The expression of an opinion may not be made in such a way as to be capable of seriously damaging or endangering the reputation and legitimate economic and organizational interests of the employer.

In an employment relationship, the worker performs work in the interests of the employer, taking into account the employer’s economic interests. Therefore, the worker has no unlimited rights. The worker’s rights may be limited during the fulfilment of employment duties. It applies vice versa to the employer. The Labour Code does not grant unlimited rights to the employer to limit the rights of the worker either. The limitations made in writing by the employer in advance shall be strictly necessary for legitimate reasons and directly related to the intended purpose of the employment relationship. It is for the national court to assess the facts, the circumstances, the worker’s conduct and, of course, the employer’s conduct to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether in this case the worker’s conduct violates these measures or not.

Concerning the registration of trade unions, the registration and administration of trade unions do not fall under the competence of the employers’ organization. We believe that the measures for registration and administration apply to legal persons and should be implemented in the same way, without making any distinction. Allow me to give you an example.

A trade union is a legal person which has a name. The Civil Code clearly defines the requirement of name exclusivity, name validity and name freedom for all legal persons, ranging from non-governmental organizations to higher education institutions. Name exclusivity means that the name of the legal person must be different from the name of any other legal person operating in a similar field of activity, such as an association or foundation. The name should be unique and should not be confusing. The requirement of name validity is met if the name is not likely to mislead, in view of its importance and its function. In particular, the name must not give the impression that the activities of the organization relate to those of another legal person.

These above-mentioned rules also apply to trade unions. Nonetheless, we note that there should always be time and room to assess the need for simplification of registration and administration requirements in general, especially when technology is developing at such a rapid pace.

Concerning the control of activities of trade unions carried out by the national prosecutors, we underline that the law on controlling such activities should be equally applied to all associations, including trade unions.

Concerning the deduction of union membership fees, we confirm that the ban on the deduction of union membership fees was on the agenda of the VKF. It is not a burden for employers to deduct union membership fees from wages. Therefore, we did not request such a change. The current restrictions relate only to the public sector, which is not part of our membership.

Last but not least, about the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities. We take the view that passenger transport services and postal services have such an impact on businesses and the population’s everyday life that it is vital to have special rules on strikes. We agree that the content, primarily the scope, of minimum services shall be regulated and subject to consultation.

In conclusion, we, the Hungarian employers, strongly stand for the principles of social dialogue and industrial relations. We appreciate the Government’s commitment to further national-level dialogue on the matters raised in the Committee of Experts’ observations and look forward to discussing these issues in the relevant national-level tripartite forums.

Government member, Turkmenistan – Turkmenistan welcomes the distinguished delegation of Hungary and expresses its gratitude for the information provided on the current situation regarding the implementation of the Convention. We note the commitment of the Government of Hungary to its international obligations and its willingness to engage in open and constructive dialogue with both national social partners and the ILO, which demonstrates a readiness for productive cooperation within the ILO supervisory mechanisms. We especially highlight the efforts to strengthen social dialogue, particularly through the VKF. We also draw attention to the presented review of legislation and court practice concerning freedom of expression, which confirms compliance with international standards. With regard to trade union registration, a clear and predictable legal procedure has been presented. No country has a perfect system. However, the information provided shows that Hungary has the necessary legal guarantees and is open to improving its practices. We propose that all interested parties continue constructive dialogue at the national level, and we believe that an approach based on mutual respect and cooperation will lead to positive outcomes.

Worker member, Finland – I speak on behalf of the Nordic trade unions. Today we address a case of serious and persistent violations of the Convention by Hungary. A core issue here is the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities under Article 3 of the Convention – specifically, the right to strike and the excessive restrictions imposed through minimum service requirements in law and in practice.

Unfortunately, the concerns are nothing new. Since the 2010 amendments to the Hungarian Strike Act, the Committee of Experts has repeatedly addressed Hungary’s framework – consistently discovering arbitrary limits on workers’ ability to take lawful strike action. These are not theoretical concerns – they are rooted in a legal reality that has made strikes virtually impossible in certain sectors for over a decade.

Already in 2012, the Committee of Experts noted that unions’ efforts to determine minimum service levels were routinely rejected by courts, often without proper justification, and that no strikes had taken place as a result. The Government was urged to ensure that the Strike Act does not prevent workers from exercising their rights.

In 2014, the Committee of Experts emphasized that minimum service requirements must be confined strictly to what is necessary to meet the basic needs of the population and must not render strikes ineffective. Yet Hungarian law requires that minimum service agreements be reached or imposed by courts before any strike can proceed, leading to legal uncertainty and excessive delays.

Later observations, including those in 2015 and 2018, highlighted that the thresholds Hungary sets – 66 per cent in local and suburban passenger transport, 50 per cent nationally – bear no relation to what could reasonably be called “minimum”. In the postal sector, similarly excessive levels apply. Effectively, strikes are being stripped of their essential leverage.

Despite some tripartite dialogue having taken place, the Committee of Experts has consistently questioned its effectiveness. Workers’ organizations report that organizing a lawful strike remains practically impossible under the current legal framework far too often.

The proper and contextual interpretation here is clear: workers must be involved in defining minimum services, and in case of disagreement, an independent or joint body must resolve the matter swiftly. Minimum service must mean exactly that – minimum – limited strictly to safeguarding basic needs.

Yet, in both 2022 and 2023, the Committee of Experts was again forced to draw the same conclusions. The Government continues to cite legal certainty and public needs – justifications that now seem increasingly like a smokescreen to obscure the real intent for maintaining the current restrictive regime. No meaningful steps have been taken.

We must ask: how much longer must Hungarian workers wait to exercise the rights guaranteed for them? We urge the Committee to adopt strong conclusions. Hungary must bring its legislation into full conformity with the Convention.

Government member, Serbia – We thank the Committee of Experts for its report and we take note of its observations. Our delegation has listened carefully to the distinguished representative of Hungary on the implementation of the Convention. Serbia recognizes the strong legal framework in Hungary that guarantees freedom of association and the right to organize and is in line with the international and EU legal instruments.

The alignment of the Labour Code with European Court of Human Rights standards and practice clearly demonstrates the clear commitment of Hungary to the enjoyment of labour rights. In line with this, we commend the adoption of the revised European Social Charter.

In order to fully realize rights in practice, we encourage the Government of Hungary to constructively engage in the consultation process with the Prosecutor’s Office regarding supervisory prosecutorial oversight, which does not fall within the current legal framework.

Furthermore, Serbia welcomes the readiness of the Hungarian Government to define clear, fair conditions for minimum and sufficient services during strikes, and we appreciate their opinions for discussions on the Strike Act.

The above measures will reinforce the integrity of democratic institutions and strengthen trust in the rule of law.

In conclusion, we would like to encourage continuation of open, inclusive and constructive social dialogue and cooperation among tripartite constituents in Hungary, in order to address issues listed in the report of the Committee of Experts.

Worker member, Germany – I speak on behalf of the German trade unions and wish to express our profound concern about the ongoing and systemic violations of the Convention by the Government of Hungary. Despite repeated observations and recommendations from the Committee of Experts, the Hungarian Government has continued to undermine fundamental trade union rights, both in law and in practice, implementing measures that constitute blatant harassment of trade unions and result in a shrinking space for trade unions and their rights.

Let me list the most recent developments. Since 1 January 2024, due to legislation adopted through Act LXX of 2023, public employers in Hungary are no longer permitted to automatically deduct union dues from the wages of public employees. This move, far from administrative neutrality, is a deliberate attempt to weaken trade unions in the public sector, shifting the entire burden onto individual workers. As a direct result, unions such as the Forum for the Co-operation of Trade Unions (SZEF), which represents only public service workers, have lost approximately 10,000 members within a single year. This has significantly damaged not only their financial base, but also their operational capacity to represent workers effectively. This development fits a broader pattern.

First, on the issue of freedom of expression, Hungarian labour law still contains sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code, which restrict workers from expressing opinions – even outside working hours – if such views are deemed harmful to the employer’s interests. This is an unacceptable limitation on trade union activity and democratic expression. Despite years of urging by the Committee of Experts, the Government has failed to take legislative action.

Second, regarding union registration, the process continues to be bogged down by bureaucratic hurdles and delays. The Government has hinted that solutions are in preparation; no meaningful progress has been reported.

Moreover, trade unions are increasingly forced to disclose sensitive internal data, including financial details and membership numbers. These requirements, combined with legitimate data protection concerns, threaten union autonomy and operational freedom.

We are also gravely concerned about allegations from the ITUC that national prosecutors have interfered in union operations – demanding documents, questioning decisions, and even conducting direct inspections. Such practices amount to State control over independent workers’ organizations and are clearly incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention. The Government has yet to respond to these serious allegations.

We are witnessing a coordinated dismantling of trade union power in Hungary. We therefore urge the Hungarian Government to reinstate automatic dues deductions in the public sector, to reform labour laws that restrict freedom of expression, to simplify and depoliticize union registration procedures, to end State surveillance of union activities and to amend restrictive strike legislation without further delay.

Government member, Georgia – First of all, I would like to express my respect to the ILO for the efforts to strengthen the international labour system. With regard to the current case, I would like to focus on the following matters. The Hungarian legal system clearly provides adequate guarantees for freedom of association and the right to organize.

These rights are guaranteed in the Fundamental Law of Hungary which states in the relevant articles that everyone shall have the right to establish or join organizations, including trade unions. Regarding freedom of expression in Hungary, it is considered a fundamental right protected by numerous European, international and, of course, national legal tools.

What is important is that the provisions of the Hungarian Labour Code comply with the criteria established by the European Court of Human Rights, which is a vital institution for the protection of human rights. The Hungarian legislation on the registration of trade unions, we think, also clearly provides an appropriate legal framework.

Of course, the issue of defining the conditions for minimum and sufficient services during a strike remains unresolved, and we commend the Government of Hungary for its openness to continuing discussions on the Strike Act. In conclusion, I would like to stress that, based on the existing legislative framework and measures in force, Hungarian legislation appears to be in line with the Convention.

Worker member, Belgium – The Belgian, Italian and French workers wish to express their solidarity with their Hungarian comrades regarding their legitimate concerns about the draft law on the “transparency of public life”. This draft law provides for the establishment of a list of organizations deemed to threaten the sovereignty of Hungary. It targets organizations that receive support from abroad and participate in public debate. According to the draft, the list is drawn up by the Government on a discretionary basis. However, inclusion on this list entails very serious consequences:

• The leaders must submit a declaration of assets and are considered politically exposed persons.
• Donors must prove that funds were not received from abroad.
• Only the anti-money-laundering authority may authorize the receipt of foreign support.
• Extensive administrative inspections may be conducted.
• Depending on the case, offenders may face suspension of their banking transactions, an administrative fine of 25 times the amount of support received, or even a ban on their activities.
• Judicial review is provided for, but only retrospectively, by way of annulment and without suspensive effect, and therefore without any practical effect.

Firstly, the draft law undermines the exercise of the rights to freedom of expression and association. Given its very broad wording, many civil society actors promoting democratic debate could face serious obstacles, or even be forced to cease their activities or go bankrupt. The draft law also risks having a chilling effect and discouraging citizens from participating in public debate. It also has a potentially stigmatizing effect on organizations receiving international funding, as it refers to anti-money-laundering measures, which combat financial crime and the financing of terrorism.

Secondly, these provisions jeopardize freedom of association. They restrict the freedom of trade unions to utilize their funds in the context of their international activities, for normal and lawful purposes. Similarly, the freezing of union bank accounts may constitute a serious interference by the authorities in trade union activities. It must also be regretted that the draft law, which affects workers and their organizations, was not subject to social consultation through the VKF.

Thirdly, undermining the means of action available to trade unions and civil society risks weakening the system of checks and balances and, in so doing, undermining the rule of law. We therefore urge the Hungarian State to definitively abandon this draft law.

Government member, Kyrgyzstan – On behalf of the Kyrgyz Republic, I extend our appreciation for the opportunity to address the Committee regarding the case of Hungary. Kyrgyzstan highly values its strong bilateral relations with Hungary which stands as our only strategic partner within the EU.

Hungary’s legal framework, including its Fundamental Law and Labour Code, provides robust guarantees for freedom of association and the right to organize, aligning with both European and international norms.

Kyrgyzstan welcomes Hungary’s proactive measures to ensure a transparent and fair trade union registration process, as well as its dedication to addressing concerns through constructive dialogue, including consultations with the prosecutor general’s office.

Additionally, the provision for the automatic deduction of trade union fees further demonstrates Hungary’s efforts to facilitate workers’ representation without creating an undue burden.

While certain challenges remain, we applaud Hungary’s openness to engagement and its commitment to social dialogue. These efforts reflect a genuine resolve to strengthen labour rights, in line with ILO principles.

In conclusion, Kyrgyzstan expresses its full confidence in Hungary’s continued progress and encourages the Committee to recognize its achievements. We stand in solidarity with our strategic partner and urge all parties to support Hungary’s constructive approach.

Worker member, Brazil – On behalf of the workers of Brazil, I extend fraternal greetings and solidarity to the working classes throughout the world. The Committee of Experts’ report, which forms the technical basis for the examination of this case, places particular emphasis on the deduction of trade union dues.

As occurred in Brazil following the coup d’état against President Dilma Rousseff, Acts Nos 29 of 1991 and 33 of 1992 were amended in Hungary to prohibit employers from deducting trade union membership dues from the wages of public employees, including education and home healthcare workers. This measure directly affects trade union financing and, consequently, the strength and capacity of trade unions to operate.

The adoption of such measures was not preceded by due social dialogue, and their effects were immediately felt by trade unions, which lost financial resources and members. As a result, trade unions have been weakened, upsetting the balance of power in collective bargaining, which in this case involves the State itself as the employer.

In Brazil, despite the change in Government, the harmful labour reform has yet to be overturned owing to the ultra-conservative composition of Parliament. As a result, problems with trade union financing persist, along with the gradual weakening of the working class. Our example illustrates the scale and seriousness of what is currently happening in Hungary.

In the Committee, we have heard countless times that there can be no effective democracy without strong trade unions capable of giving a voice to the working class and defending their interests. That is what this case is all about. Freedom of association, effective social dialogue and democracy. We regret the current developments in Hungary and hope that the Committee will urge the Government to take all necessary measures, including legislative, in consultation with the social partners, to give full effect to the fundamental right to freedom of association.

Government member, Israel – Israel would like to thank the Hungarian Government for the information it has provided the Committee during today’s morning session. Israel wishes to express its support for Hungary and to commend its steadfast commitment to the principles of freedom of association and the protection of the right to organize, as enshrined in the Convention. This commitment is clearly reflected in Hungary’s legal and institutional framework – most notably, its Labour Code, which guarantees workers the right to freely form and join trade unions without fear of discrimination or retaliation.

One notable example of Hungary’s efforts to promote fair labour practices and foster constructive social dialogue is the operation of the National Economic and Social Council (NGTT). This tripartite body brings together representatives of workers, employers, and civil society, providing a vital platform for open and meaningful dialogue on labour and economic policy issues. Through mechanisms such as the NGTT, Hungary ensures that the voices of workers are heard, valued and respected in the national decision-making process, in full alignment with international labour standards.

To conclude, by continuously strengthening its legal protections and promoting inclusive, participatory dialogue, Hungary demonstrates its ongoing dedication to upholding the core principles of the ILO and advancing decent work and social justice for all.

Government member, Azerbaijan – The Hungarian legal system provides adequate guarantees for freedom of association and the right to organize. These rights are guaranteed in the Fundamental Law of Hungary, which clearly states in article 8 that everyone shall have the right to establish or join organizations, including trade unions.

As is known in Hungary, freedom of expression is considered a fundamental right protected and ensured by numerous international, European and national legal instruments. The provisions of the Hungarian Labour Code comply with the criteria established by the European Court of Human Rights – and adopted by the Hungarian Constitutional Court.

We see that the Government of Hungary is open to continue discussions related to the Strike Act and considers a unified position on the part of the trade unions is of crucial importance. We highly welcome that. Further discussions and tripartite consultations might be needed at national level. The active engagement of the Hungarian social partners would also be necessary to meaningfully address the issues raised in the comments of the Committee of Experts.

Government member, Türkiye – Türkiye acknowledges Hungary’s longstanding ratification of the Convention and welcomes the Government’s reaffirmed commitment to protecting the rights of workers and employers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing without prior authorization.

We take note of the detailed written and oral clarifications provided by the Hungarian Government, particularly with regard to the recent amendments of the Labour Code. We understand that these revisions aim to enhance the effectiveness of collective bargaining and enterprise-level dialogue, while ensuring legal coherence and predictability.

We welcome the continued functioning of the VKF, which met 28 times between 2022 and 2024. This platform serves as a key mechanism for institutionalized social dialogue on wage policy, strike legislation and union-related matters.

On trade union registration, we appreciate the Government’s clarification that over 1,100 trade unions were successfully registered between 2017 and 2021. This reflects a functioning administrative system supported by simplified procedures and standard statutes. We encourage continued efforts to eliminate any practical or procedural barriers to ensure full compliance with Article 2 of the Convention.

Türkiye believes that dialogue and constructive engagement are essential in addressing concerns related to the implementation of international labour standards. In this regard, we encourage all stakeholders to approach the matter with a spirit of cooperation and mutual understanding. Türkiye also underscores the importance of cooperative engagement and welcomes Hungary’s expressed commitment to ongoing dialogue with the ILO and its readiness to further align domestic legislation with international obligations. In conclusion, Türkiye supports the Government of Hungary in its continued efforts to give full effect to the Convention and to foster an enabling environment for the freedom of association and collective action.

Government member, Kazakhstan – The Kazakhstani delegation commends Hungary’s commitment to upholding the principles of the Convention. Hungary’s comprehensive legal framework, robust social dialogue, and ongoing engagement with the ILO demonstrate clear dedication to protecting workers’ rights and trade union freedoms. We note Hungary’s proactive steps to address the Committee of Experts’ observations. Kazakhstan supports Hungary’s efforts to balance employer and worker interests while fostering an environment conducive to freedom of association. We encourage continued dialogue to ensure full compliance with the Convention and express our confidence in Hungary’s commitment to these shared values.

Observer, IndustriALL Global Union – I am speaking on behalf of IndustriALL Global Union, which has three industrial affiliates in Hungary. In accordance with the recommendations of the Committee of Experts, the Government must implement all necessary measures, including legislative action, in consultation with the social partners, to ensure that sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code do not restrict workers’ freedom of expression or hinder trade unions and their leaders in fulfilling their mandate to protect the occupational interests of their members.

The increasing surveillance of workers’ Facebook activity, as part of broader restrictions on freedom of expression, significantly undermines organizing efforts by pressuring individuals to self-censor. This is particularly alarming given the lack of legal clarity, which enables employers to implement ostensibly lawful retaliatory measures designed to suppress dissent and collective action. In such cases, the burden falls on the worker to contest these actions in court – a process that is often complex, resource-intensive and fraught with conflict – making legal challenges rare in practice.

We call on the Government of Hungary to engage in social dialogue and adequate consultation with its social partners because even though there is in place the VKF, the role of social partners remains minimal and largely symbolic, and several legislative proposals, such as the recent new foreign agent law, have bypassed the Forum.

Furthermore, the Government’s justification for eliminating the payroll deduction of membership fees as an “administrative burden” is both baseless and misleading. The system had operated effectively since 1991 and continues to be the primary method of union membership dues collection in Hungary. Payroll deduction simplifies the process for members and ensures reliable financing for unions – especially critical given that membership fees are typically set at 1 per cent of a fluctuating base salary, which can only be accurately tracked through employer deductions.

The Government must take immediate action to eliminate all burdens and obstacles hindering union registration.

We demand that the Government urgently engage in meaningful consultations with the social partners to implement necessary reforms, including the simplification of registration requirements, particularly those related to union headquarters.

In addition, the Government must urgently amend the Strike Act, in consultation with social partners, to ensure clarity, fairness, and the protection of workers’ fundamental rights. The current law remains excessively vague, failing to clearly define which sectors are subject to minimum service requirements.

We call on the Government of Hungary to take immediate action to guarantee the resumption of sectoral collective bargaining, which has been critically lacking.

Observer, Building and Woodworkers’ International (BWI) – BWI represents millions of workers across the construction, building materials, wood and forestry sectors. These industries are marked by some of the most challenging conditions in the world of work – high-risk environments, short-term contracts and layered subcontracting chains. It is precisely in this context that workers need strong, independent trade unions to safeguard their rights, ensure workplace safety and secure fair pay.

Yet in Hungary, this fundamental right – the right to organize freely and form trade unions – is facing serious and persistent limitations.

The report from the Committee of Experts delivers a stark warning. Despite years of engagement and repeated observations, the Hungarian Government has once again failed to respond to credible, long-standing allegations about restrictive trade union registration practices.

The Committee of Experts outlined a pattern of systemic obstruction: union applications rejected over minor procedural flaws; rigid legal requirements forcing by-laws to conform with civil legislation; and unjustified conditions, such as mandating the inclusion of employer names in union titles.

These are not bureaucratic errors. They are deliberate structural barriers. They restrict freedom of association, diminish the voice of workers, and directly undermine the Convention – one of the ILO’s core Conventions.

Let us be clear: the refusal to simplify and reform these procedures is not a neutral policy choice. It fragments worker representation, weakens labour protections and corrodes trust in democratic institutions.

The Committee of Experts urged the Hungarian Government to engage in meaningful dialogue with workers’ and employers’ organizations and to take concrete action to remove these obstacles. That call must be answered with urgency and sincerity.

We join the Committee of Experts in calling on the Hungarian Government to take immediate and concrete action. Specifically, we demand that the Government initiate an inclusive tripartite consultation process with workers’ and employers’ organizations to review and reform the current union registration procedures. This must include eliminating excessive formalities, removing arbitrary barriers, and ensuring that the registration of trade unions is timely, transparent and consistent with international labour standards. The Government must also provide detailed data on registration approvals and refusals, to allow public accountability and international scrutiny.

Government representative – On behalf of the Government of Hungary, we take note of the observations made by the members of the Committee. We will consider them carefully, and will strive to take them into account. In my concluding remarks, I would like to emphasize that the Government of Hungary considers effective social dialogue at the national, sectoral and enterprise levels to be a key element of the world of work. At the legislative level, the Hungarian Fundamental Law provides the general framework and guarantees for freedom of association, as well as the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike. Our national regulatory environment regarding workers’ collective rights is in line with the standards set by international labour norms. Hungary remains firmly committed to the full implementation of the Convention and we are open to constructive dialogue, both domestically and internationally, as stressed by many speakers. We will continue to work in partnership with our social partners to promote fair labour relations, decent work and inclusive economic growth in Hungary.

Employer members – The Employer members would like to thank the various distinguished speakers who took the floor for their interventions and for the information provided, of which we fully have taken note. We reiterate what the Convention is a fundamental Convention and that we condemn non-compliance relating to the application of this Convention.

We are pleased that the Government, both in writing and orally today, reaffirmed its willingness and commitment to further national-level social dialogue. Considering today’s discussion, we would like to recommend the following. First, we ask the Government to provide without undue delay further information on the number of registered organizations and the number of organizations denied or delayed registration, including details on the grounds for refusal of registration for the period from 2021 to 2025: to respond to the allegations and to provide information on the type of inquiries conducted by prosecutors, as well as on the outcome of the discussions on union membership fees within the VKF.

Second, we urge the Government to start a process of social dialogue with the national representative employers’ and workers’ organizations to examine the discussed points, especially regarding the assessment of a need to simplify the registration requirements with the aim to apply the obligations of the Convention in law and practice.

Third, we ask the Government to provide information on the progress made and all measures taken in this respect.

To conclude, we count on the collaboration of the Government to start meaningful engagement with the social partners and to implement these recommendations.

Worker members – We have heard from our discussion today the fundamental importance of the Convention as an enabling right and the need for the Hungarian Government to guarantee its protection in law and practice, including taking immediate steps in consultation with the social partners to implement the repeated comments of the Committee of Experts again in both law and in practice.

The Committee of Experts’ report repeats its long-standing concern that sections 8 and 9 of the 2012 Labour Code are incompatible with the Convention by restricting workers’ fundamental right to freedom of expression.

Under this law, workers are prohibited from engaging in any conduct including their right to express an opinion in or outside of the workplace that may jeopardize the employer’s reputation or economic interests.

Freedom of expression for trade unions, in pursuit of representing the interests of our members, necessarily sometimes includes the need to say things that are uncomfortable for the Government, an employer, or both.

It is only by challenging the comfort of those with power that we can shift the status quo and ensure decent work. Any prohibition on the free and frank discussion of fundamental labour rights and working conditions suffocates the ability of unions to drive forward social progress and economic well-being, in short, damaging our own legitimate interests.

Once again, as the Committee of Experts has done, we urge the Government to work with the social partners to amend this law to ensure that it does not impede the freedom of expression of workers and the ability of trade unions to defend the occupational interests of their members.

We are gravely concerned about allegations that national prosecutors have interfered in internal union operations demanding documents, questioning decisions and even conducting direct inspections of trade union offices. Such practices seek to assert State control over independent workers’ organizations and are clearly incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention. The Government has yet to respond to these serious allegations.

Unfortunately, the Government has opened up a new front by attacking public sector unions. Since January 2024, public employers in Hungary are no longer permitted to automatically deduct union dues from the wages of public employees. The effect of this will clearly be to weaken trade unions in the public sector.

In a joint statement issued by the SZEF and the National Federation of Workers’ Councils (MOSZ), the unions expressed deep concern that this legislative change will weaken social dialogue, damage labour relations and ultimately reduce the quality of public services in Hungary. We fully support this view and call on the Government to reverse this measure and to restore workers’ rights to adopt deductions from their wages under the check-off system in line with the Convention.

Regarding union registration, delays and bureaucratic hurdles continue to frustrate the registration and operation of trade unions. The Committee of Experts report once again calls on the Government to work with the social partners to streamline the trade union registration process and to provide meaningful data on the number of unions registered or denied registration to better assess compliance with the Convention.

We note from the debate that there appears to be some confusion as to whether legislation demands a certain nomenclature for unions, or whether the name of a union can in any way cause delays in, or refusal of, registration.

We ask that the Government clarify this urgently with the social partners, with the expectation that a union’s name should in no way be subject to external approval and certainly not be grounds for blocking registration.

We also note with serious concern that the right to strike remains restricted. The Committee of Experts has previously called for reforms to the Strike Act, the Passenger Transport Services Act and the Postal Services Act to ensure that unions can take part in defining minimum service levels. The Government must act on this with urgency.

We also note with grave concern the general atmosphere for the exercise of civil liberties in Hungary and that civil space is being squeezed.

On 13 May a draft law on the transparency of public life was submitted to the Hungarian Parliament which, if passed, would pose a serious threat to civil society, including trade unions. Under this proposal, trade unions that receive any funding from foreign sources, including the EU, may be placed on a public watch list and subjected to financial and administrative sanctions simply for representing the interests of their members, by seeking to influence public officials through normal channels.

We remind fellow delegates that trade unions operate both domestically, regionally and internationally. For example, five Hungarian union federations are members of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and their attendance at some ETUC meetings is financially supported by the EU in recognition of the need to represent their members’ interests across the EU. Therefore, any interference in sources of funding interferes in a union’s rights to organize and carry out its activities in defence of its members’ interests. We urge the Government to immediately take steps to address this and other concerns aired today in this Committee.

Free and independent trade unions are the beating heart of a healthy civil society. The protections afforded by the Convention ensure that workers’ rights can be defended and, in turn, nurture a climate of respect for civil liberties and democratic freedoms. Any attempt to undermine the provisions of the Convention therefore has a far wider impact and raises serious concerns for the exercise of all other human rights.

We therefore urge the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to adopt without delay a time-bound concrete action plan to reform labour laws that restrict workers’ freedom of expression, reinstate automatic dues deductions in the public sector, simplify union registration procedures, amend restrictive strike legislation without further delay, avoid adopting any proposed measures that would chill legitimate trade union activity and the exercise of trade union rights.

Freedom of association is not a privilege. It is a fundamental right of workers and their unions under international law. And we must be clear, if a Government systematically attacks unions, silences workers and evades accountability, it fails to meet its obligations under the Convention.

Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee took note of the written and oral information provided by the Government and the discussion that followed.

The Committee noted with concern the restrictions in law and practice regarding the right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities, as well as to further and defend the interests of their members in line with the Convention.

Taking the discussion into account, the Committee urged the Government:

• in consultation with the social partners, to take measures to guarantee that sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code do not impede or impair the fundamental rights provided by the Convention, including the right of workers’ organizations to defend the occupational interests of their members;
• to engage in consultations with representative workers’ and employers’ organizations to assess the need to simplify the registration requirements in law and practice, as well as those relating to their headquarters; and
• in consultation with the social partners, to address the obstacles to the registration in practice and provide data on: the number of registered organizations and the number of organizations denied or delayed registration, including details on the grounds for refusal of registration for the period 2021–2025, to respond to the allegations and to provide information on the type of inquiries conducted by prosecutors; and on the outcome of the discussions on union membership fees within the Permanent Consultative Forum of the Competitive Sector.

The Committee requested the Government to report any progress to the Committee of Experts on the measures taken to implement the above recommendations by 1 September 2025.

Chairperson – I now invite the distinguished representative of the Government of Hungary to take the floor.

Another Government representative – We take note of the conclusions of the Committee. We reaffirm that Hungary remains firmly committed to the full implementation of the Convention, to fulfilling its duties as a Member of the ILO, and that we are open to constructive dialogue with the social partners at national level. The Government considers effective social dialogue at the national, sectoral and enterprise levels to be a key element of the world of work.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2025, published 114th ILC session (2026)

The Committee notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) received on 1 September 2025, which reiterate the comments made at the discussion held in the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference (the Conference Committee) in June 2025. It further notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 2 September 2025, relating to matters addressed below.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 113th Session, June 2025)

The Committee notes the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee in June 2025 concerning the application of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Conference Committee noted with concern the restrictions in law and practice regarding the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities, as well as to further and defend the interests of their members in line with the Convention.

The Committee observes that the Conference Committee urged the Government to:

• in consultation with the social partners, take measures to guarantee that sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code do not impede or impair the fundamental rights provided by the Convention, including the rights of workers’ organizations to defend the occupational interests of their members;
• engage in consultations with representative workers’ and employers’ organizations to assess the need to simplify the registration requirements in law and practice, as well as those relating to their headquarters; and
• in consultation with the social partners, address the obstacles to the registration in practice and provide data on the number of registered organizations and the number of organizations denied or delayed registration, including details on the grounds for refusal of registration for the period 2021–25, to respond to the allegations and provide information on the type of inquiries conducted by prosecutors; and on the outcome of the discussions on union membership fees within the Permanent Consultative Forum of the Competitive Sector.

The Conference Committee requested the Government to report any progress to the Committee of Experts on the measures taken to implement the above recommendations by 1 September 2025.

Freedom of expression. In its previous comments, the Committee noted with concern that sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code prohibited workers from engaging in any conduct, including the exercise of their right to express an opinion – whether during or outside working time – that may jeopardize the employer’s reputation or legitimate economic and organizational interests, and explicitly provided for the possibility to restrict workers’ personal rights in this regard. The Committee urged the Government to take all necessary measures, including legislative, to guarantee that the above provisions did not impede the freedom of expression of workers and the exercise of the mandate of trade unions and their leaders to defend the occupational interests of their members. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that according to article IX of the Fundamental Law, everyone has the right to freedom of expression. The Government explains that this right is not unlimited and can be restricted if it conflicts with other fundamental rights. A worker’s freedom of expression may be restricted taking into account specific characteristics of the employment relationship. The Government further explains that according to the Constitutional Court, the constitutionality of any such restriction must be assessed and determined on a case-by-case basis. The Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government on the number of court cases regarding workers’ right to freedom of expression involving application of sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code in the last five years. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that one of the principles established by the courts is that termination of employment due to the exercise of the right to strike violates the worker’s right to strike and is unlawful. The Committee welcomes the Government indication that on 2 December 2025, the Permanent Consultation Forum of the Private Sector and the Government (VKF) discussed sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code. The Government informs that the tripartite partners concluded that sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code needed to be reviewed and agreed to continue discussions. Workers’ representatives promised to submit a specific drafting proposal. The Committee notes this information with interest. It expects the Government to provide information on all further steps taken and progress achieved to address this Committee’s previous comments and the Conference Committee’s conclusions on this matter.

Article 2 of the Convention. Registration of trade unions. The Committee previously urged the Government to: (i) engage without delay in consultations with representative organizations of employers and workers to assess the need to further simplify the registration requirements, including those relating to union headquarters; and (ii) take the necessary measures to effectively address the alleged obstacles to registration in practice, so as not to impede the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing. The Committee also requested the Government to provide information on the number of registered organizations and the number of organizations denied or delayed registration during the reporting period, including details on the grounds for refusal of registration, so as to enable the Committee to better assess the conformity of these grounds with the Convention. The Committee notes the observations of the ITUC reiterating the excessive requirements and practical obstacles to trade union registration. The Committee notes the detailed description of the registration procedure provided by the Government. It further notes that the following statistics concerning registration of trade unions for the period between 1 June 2021 and 31 May 2025: out of 19 trade unions that applied for registration, 18 were registered, one withdrew its application; no application was rejected. The Government further informs that at the VKF meeting on 2 December 2025, the social partners agreed that it was not the registration procedure but the 60-day deadline for modification of registration procedures which caused problems in day-to-day operations (e.g., delays in registering new representatives). Both sides agreed to support a shortening of the deadline for trade unions and employers’ organizations. In this regard, the Government confirmed that from a constitutional point of view, there are no obstacles to applying different procedural deadlines to trade unions and employers’ associations as opposed to other organizations. The Government further indicates that the workers’ side proposed to review the reporting system with regard to the registration of union’s headquarters. The Committee welcomes this information The Committee recalls that while formalities requiring the official recognition of an organization are not in themselves incompatible with the Convention, they must not constitute an obstacle so as to undermine the freedom of association, to the exercise of legitimate trade union activities, or provide discretionary power to authorities (2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paras 83–84). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the ongoing consultations with representative workers’ and employers’ organizations on the issue of registration. It expects that concrete steps will be taken to address this Committee’s comments and the conclusions of the Conference Committee on this matter.

Article 3. Rights of workers’ organizations to organize their administration. The Committee recalls the ITUC comments concerning the restriction of trade union activity by the power of national prosecutors, for instance by reviewing general ad hoc decisions of unions, conducting inspections directly or through state bodies, and enjoying free and unlimited access to trade union offices. The Committee notes that the ITUC reiterates its allegations. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the amendment of the Civil Code in 2013 resulted in the termination of prosecutors’ supervisory powers over the operation of trade unions. Pursuant to the same amendment, the registry court now exercises legal supervision of legal entities. The power of prosecutors is now limited to the right to initiate civil non-contentious proceedings (to confirm the cessation of operations), or to propose the conduct of a supervision procedure before the court; prosecutors cannot take any binding measures against trade unions and can only request information from an organization in connection with errors in the data entered in the official registry. According to the Government, between 1 September 2020 and 31 August 2025, the prosecutor’s office did not conduct any prosecutorial oversight of the activities of trade unions, did not carry out any investigations in this regard, and therefore did not take any measures. The Government informs that on 2 December 2025, both employers and workers within the VKF unanimously stated that, as a result of the legislative amendment and the termination of the prosecutor’s power of review, the previously identified problems had been resolved. Thus, they did not wish to propose any amendments to the current regulatory framework. The Committee takes due note of this information.

Deduction of union membership fees. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that section 1 of Act XXIX of 1991 on the Voluntary Nature of Membership Fees in Workers’ Representative Organizations, as amended, obliged employers, except as otherwise stipulated by law, to deduct from employees’ wages trade union dues upon receiving a written request from the employee and transfer them to the trade union concerned, but that section 12/A of Act XXXIII of 1992 on the Legal Status of Public Employees prohibited employers from deducting or transferring such dues from the wages of public sector employees. The Committee notes that the Government confirms that employers in the public sector cannot deduct trade union membership fees from wages and transfer them to the trade union; instead, trade union members are required to pay their membership fees directly. The Government considers that direct payment requires members to decide on membership and fee payment. It further explains that the objective was to reduce the administrative costs of public sector employers, as in today’s digital age, direct transfers are not particularly complicated for workers. The Committee notes that workers and employers within the VKF agreed that the fundamental problem was not the abolition of the direct employer membership fee deductions, but rather the lack of clear methods set out by law of providing membership certification to employers and proposed to develop a uniform methodology in this respect. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all developments in this regard.

Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities. The Committee notes with deep regret that the Government provides no information regarding measures taken to amend the Strike Act, the Passenger Transport Services Act and the Public Services Act in order to ensure that the relevant workers’ organizations may participate in fixing a definition of minimum service and that, where no agreement is possible, to refer the matter to a joint or independent body. The Committee notes that the Government merely indicates that the legal system provides adequate guarantees for the exercise of the right to freedom of association and the right to organize. The Committee once again firmly urges the Government to take all necessary measures to amend without further delay the above-mentioned pieces of legislation as per the Committee’s previous comments, and to provide information on all developments in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2024, published 113rd ILC session (2025)

The Committee notes the observations of the workers’ group of the National ILO Council (hereafter the workers’ group) at its meeting of 13 September 2024, included in the Government’s report, which relate to the issues examined by the Committee below, and the Government’s comments thereon.

Freedom of expression. In its previous comments, the Committee noted with concern that sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code (2012) prohibited workers from engaging in any conduct, including the exercise of their right to express an opinion – whether during or outside working time – that may jeopardize the employer’s reputation or legitimate economic and organizational interests, and explicitly provided for the possibility to restrict workers’ personal rights in this regard. The Committee urged the Government to take all necessary measures, including legislative, to guarantee that the above provisions did not impede the freedom of expression of workers and the exercise of the mandate of trade unions and their leaders to defend the occupational interests of their members. The Committee notes with deepregret that the Government has not taken any concrete steps to address its previous comments and merely indicates that a debate was held in 2021, and that a publication addressing interpretive questions on trade unions’ right to freedom of expression was issued in 2022. The Committee observes, however, that according to the workers’ group, the discussion held in 2021 did not amount to a consultation. The Committee must therefore once again urge the Government to take all necessary measures, including legislative, in consultation with the social partners, to guarantee that sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code do not impede the freedom of expression of workers and the exercise of the mandate of trade unions and their leaders to defend the occupational interests of their members. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on concrete steps taken and all progress achieved in this respect.

Article 2 of the Convention. Registration of trade unions. The Committee deeply regrets that the Government once again fails to provide its reply to the 2017 allegations of the International Trade Unions Confederation (ITUC) and the workers’ group which concern the stringent requirements in relation to union headquarters, the refusal of registration due to minor flaws, the imposition of the obligation of including the company’s name in the official name of associations, and the difficulties created for or encountered by trade unions because of the obligation to bring their by-laws in line with the Civil Code. The Committee recalls once again that, although the formalities of registration allow for official recognition of workers’ or employers’ organizations, these formalities should not become an obstacle to the exercise of legitimate trade union activities, nor should they allow for undue discretionary power to deny or delay the establishment of such organizations. The Committee therefore urges the Government to: (i) engage without delay in consultations with representative organizations of employers and workers to assess the need to further simplify the registration requirements, including those relating to union headquarters; and (ii) take the necessary measures to effectively address the alleged obstacles to registration in practice, so as not to impede the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing. The Committee also once again requests the Government to provide information on the number of registered organizations and the number of organizations denied or delayed registration during the reporting period, including details on the grounds for refusal of registration, so as to enable the Committee to better assess the conformity of these grounds with the Convention.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration. The Committee requested the Government to provide its comments on the ITUC allegations that trade union activity was severely restricted by the power of national prosecutors to control trade union activities, for instance by reviewing general and ad hoc decisions of unions, conducting inspections directly or through other state bodies, and enjoying free and unlimited access to trade union offices. According to the ITUC, in the exercise of their broad capacities, prosecutors questioned the lawfulness of trade union operations several times, requested numerous documents and ordered additional reports if dissatisfied with the unions’ financial reporting, thereby exceeding their legal authority. The Committee deeplyregrets that the Government has not provided its comments on these serious allegations. Recalling once again that the acts described by the ITUC would be incompatible with the right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration as enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention, the Committee expects the Government to respond to the ITUC allegations andto provide information on the type of inquiries conducted by prosecutors into trade union operations.

Deduction of union membership fees. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that in 2024, section 1 of Act XXIX of 1991 on The Voluntary Nature of Membership Fees in Workers’ Representative Organizations and section 12/A of Act XXXIII of 1992 on The Legal Status of Public Employees were amended to ensure that employers are no longer permitted to deduct union membership fees from employees’ wages or transfer these fees to the trade unions. The Committee notes that pursuant to the amended text of section 1 of Act XXIX of 1991, employers are obliged, except where otherwise stipulated by law, to deduct from employees’ wages trade union dues upon receiving a written request from the employee and transfer them to the trade union concerned. According to section 12/A of Act XXXIII of 1992, however, notwithstanding Act XXIX of 1991, employers are prohibited from deducting or transferring such dues from the wages of public employees. The Committee notes the indication of the workers’ group that the issue of a ban on union membership fees in certain sectors was placed on the agenda of the National ILO Council. The Government indicates that it has held discussions on the issue of union membership fees with the Permanent Consultative Forum of the Competitive Sector, which is the competent forum for tripartite negotiations on general economy and labour related issues. Recalling that workers should have the possibility of opting for deductions from their wages under the check-off system to be paid to trade union organizations of their choice,the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the discussion on union membership fees within the Permanent Consultative Forum of the Competitive Sector.

Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities. The Committee had previously highlighted the need to amend the relevant laws (including the Strike Act, the Passenger Transport Services Act and the Postal Services Act) in order to ensure that workers’ organizations concerned may participate in defining a minimum service and that, where no agreement is possible, the matter is referred to a joint or independent body. The Committee notes with regret that the Government has not provided any information in this regard. The Committee firmly urges the Government to take all necessary measures to amend without any further delay the Strike Act, as well as the Passenger Transport Services Act and the Postal Services Act as per the Committee’s previous comments, and to provide information on all developments in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee notes the observations of the workers’ group of the National ILO Council at its meeting of 27 October 2021, included in the Government’s report, which relate to the issues examined by the Committee below, and the Government’s comments thereon.

Freedom of expression. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted with concern that sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code (2012) prohibited workers from engaging in any conduct, including the exercise of their right to express an opinion – whether during or outside working time – that may jeopardize the employer’s reputation or legitimate economic and organizational interests, and explicitly provided for the possibility to restrict workers’ personal rights in this regard. The Committee considered that the above provisions impeded the freedom of expression of workers and the exercise of the mandate of trade unions and their leaders to defend the occupational interests of their members and expected that its comments would be fully taken into account in the framework of the ongoing review of the Labour Code. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in 2019, section 9 of the Labour Code was amended to implement the European Union reform on data protection. Pursuant to the amended text, “the employee’s personality rights [including freedom of expression] may be limited only where the limitation is strictly necessary for a reason directly associated with the intended purpose of the employment relationship and is proportionate in order to achieve that objective. The employee shall be informed in advance in writing of the manner, conditions and expected duration of the restriction of the personality right, as well as of the circumstances justifying its necessity and proportionality”. The Government points out that the amendment establishes stricter conditions for the restriction of the employees’ rights, including freedom of expression set forth in Article IX (1) of the Fundamental Law. The Committee notes that the workers’ group of the National ILO Council considers the amendment to section 9 (2) of the Labour Code to be only a partly sufficient response to the observation made by the Committee. The Committee also notes that the workers’ group is of the view that section 8 (3) of the Labour Code refers to reputation and other legitimate interests of an employer as interests to be respected and not to be seriously violated in expressing opinion. The Committee notes the workers’ group of the National ILO Council’s proposal to hold consultations on necessary and proportionate limits to the constitutional right of employee’s freedom of expression with involvement of experts and social partners. The Committee regrets that the Government merely indicates that the court being the competent body to interpret the conditions regulated by section 8 (1)-(3) of the Labour Code, the aggrieved party can bring appropriate claims in cases of violation of freedom of expression. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take all necessary measures, including legislative, in consultation with the social partners, to guarantee that sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code do not impede the freedom of expression of workers and the exercise of the mandate of trade unions and their leaders to defend the occupational interests of their members. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all progress achieved in this respect.

Article 2 of the Convention. Registration of trade unions. The Committee had previously requested the Government to provide its comments on the observations of the ITUC and the workers’ group of the National ILO Council concerning allegations on the stringent requirements in relation to union headquarters, the refusal of registration due to minor flaws, the imposition of the obligation of including the company’s name in the official name of associations, and the difficulties created or encountered by trade unions because of the obligation to bring their by-laws in line with the Civil Code. The Committee notes with regret that the Government did not provide comments in this respect. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates the information it had previously provided on the existing legal framework for registration, and adds that from 1 June 2017 to 31 May 2021, 1,149 trade unions were registered and eight applications were rejected (three without a call for rectification due to an incomplete application, and five after the issuance of a request for rectification because the applicant did not properly comply with the court’s order within the deadline). The Committee also notes the workers’ group of the National ILO Council’s observation that the implementation of Article 2 of the Convention continues to be complicated by unnecessary requirements and that trade unions may only commence operations from the effective date of the court’s decision on registration. The Committee further notes that, while the Government indicates that the courts no longer require the fulfilment of all minor requirements for court registration, the workers’ group of the National ILO Council points out that the relevant Act has not been amended accordingly. In light of the above,the Committee is obliged to request once again the Governmentto provide its comments on the observations of the ITUC and the workers’ group of the National ILO Council. The Committee recalls that, although the formalities of registration allow for official recognition of workers’ or employers’ organizations, these formalities should not become an obstacle to the exercise of legitimate trade union activities, nor should they allow for undue discretionary power to deny or delay the establishment of such organizations. Accordingly, the Committee once again requests the Government to: (i) engage without delay in consultations with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations to assess the need to further simplify the registration requirements, including those relating to union headquarters; and (ii) take the necessary measures to effectively address the alleged obstacles to registration in practice, so as not to impede the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing. The Committee also requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of registered organizations and the number of organizations denied or delayed registration during the reporting period, and to provide additional details on the grounds for refusal of registration so to enable the Committee to better assess the conformity of these grounds with the Convention.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration. The Committee had previously requested the Government to provide its comments on the ITUC allegations that trade union activity was severely restricted by the power of national prosecutors to control trade union activities, for instance by reviewing general and ad hoc decisions of unions, conducting inspections directly or through other state bodies, and enjoying free and unlimited access to trade union offices. The ITUC further alleged that, in the exercise of these broad capacities, prosecutors questioned several times the lawfulness of trade union operations, requested numerous documents (registration forms, membership records with original membership application forms, minutes of meetings, resolutions, etc.) and, if not satisfied with the unions’ financial reporting, ordered additional reports, thereby overstepping the powers provided by the law. The Committee notes with regret that the Government did not provide its comments on these serious allegations from the ITUC. Recalling that acts described by the ITUC would be incompatible with the right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention, the Committee again requests that the Government respond to the ITUC allegations.

Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities. The Committee had previously highlighted the need to amend the relevant laws (including the Strike Act, the Passenger Transport Services Act and the Postal Services Act), in order to ensure that the workers’ organizations concerned may participate in the definition of a minimum service and that, where no agreement is possible, the matter is referred to a joint or independent body. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that having dealt with difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, it plans to put on the agenda a comprehensive amendment of the Strike Act. The Committee urges the Government to take all necessary measures to amend without further delay the Strike Act, as well as the Passenger Transport Services Act and the Postal Services Act as per the Committee’s previous comments, and to provide information on all developments in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments.

Repetition

The Committee notes the observations received on 1 September 2017 from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), which are reflected in the present observation. It also notes the observations of the workers’ group of the National ILO Council at its meeting of 11 September 2017, included in the Government’s report, which relate to issues under examination by the Committee and contain allegations that Act XLII of 2015 resulted in trade unions formerly established in the area of civilian national security not being able to operate properly. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Freedom of expression. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted with concern that sections 8 and 9 of the 2012 Labour Code prohibit workers from engaging in any conduct, including the exercise of their right to express an opinion – whether during or outside working time – that may jeopardize the employer’s reputation or legitimate economic and organizational interests, and explicitly provide for the possibility to restrict workers’ personal rights in this regard. The Committee had requested the Government to provide detailed information on the results of the “For Employment” project, under which an assessment of the impact of the Labour Code on employers and workers had been undertaken, as well as on the outcome of the consultations on the modification of the Labour Code within the framework of the Permanent Consultation Forum of the Market Sector and the Government (VKF). The Committee had expressed the hope that the review of the Labour Code would fully take into account its comments with respect to the need to take any necessary measures to ensure respect for freedom of expression. The Committee notes that the Government confines itself to indicating that the negotiations in question have not been closed yet. The Committee regrets that no information has been provided by the Government on the outcome of the “For Employment” project (completed in August 2015) or on the consultations undertaken since 2015 within the framework of the VKF with a view to elaborating consensus-based proposals for the review of the Labour Code. The Committee highlights once again the need to take all necessary, including legislative, measures to guarantee that sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code do not impede the freedom of expression of workers and the exercise of the mandate of trade unions and their leaders to defend the occupational interests of their members, and expects that its comments will be fully taken into account in the framework of the ongoing review of the Labour Code. It requests the Government to provide information on any progress achieved in this respect.

Article 2 of the Convention. Registration of trade unions. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the allegation of the workers’ group of the National ILO Council that numerous rules in the new Civil Code concerning the establishment of trade unions (for example, on trade union headquarters and the verification of its legal usage) obstructed their registration in practice. The Committee had requested the Government to: (i) assess without delay, in consultation with the social partners, the need to simplify the registration requirements, including those relating to union headquarters, as well as the ensuing obligation to bring the trade union by-laws into line with the Civil Code on or before 15 March 2016; and (ii) take the necessary steps to effectively address the difficulties signalled with respect to registration in practice, so as not to hinder the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing. The Committee had also requested the Government to provide information on the number of registered organizations and the number of organizations denied or delayed registration (including the grounds for refusal or modification) during the reporting period.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Act CLXXIX of 2016 on the amendment and acceleration of proceedings regarding the registration of civil society organizations and companies, which entered into force on 1 January 2017, amended the 2011 Association Act, the 2013 Civil Code and the 2011 Civil Organization Registration Act. The legislative amendments were adopted to: (i) simplify the contents of association statutes; (ii) rationalize the court registration and change registration procedures of civil society organizations (court examination limited to compliance with essential legal requirements on number of founders, representative bodies, operation, mandatory content of statutes, legal association objectives, etc.; notices to supply missing information no longer issued on account of minor errors); and (iii) accelerate the registration by courts of civil society organizations (termination of the public prosecutor’s power to control the legality of civil society organizations; maximum time limit for registration). The Committee notes, however, that the ITUC reiterates that trade union registration regulated by the Civil Organization Registration Act is still being subjected to very strict requirements and numerous rules that operate in practice as a means to obstruct the registration of new trade unions, including the stringent requirements on trade union headquarters (unions need to prove that they have the right to use the property), and alleges that in many cases judges refused to register a union because of minor flaws in the application form and forced unions to include the enterprise name in their official names. The Committee further notes that the workers’ group of the National ILO Council states that, when the new Civil Code entered into force, all trade unions had to modify their statutes to be consistent with the law and at the same time report the changes to the courts, and reiterates that these regulations pose a serious administrative burden on trade unions.

The Committee observes the persisting divergence between the statements of the Government and the workers’ organizations. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on the observations of the ITUC and the workers’ group of the National ILO Council concerning in particular the stringent requirements in relation to union headquarters, the alleged refusal of registration due to minor flaws, the alleged imposition of including the company name in the official name of associations, and the alleged difficulties created or encountered by trade unions because of the obligation to bring their by-laws into line with the Civil Code. The Committee recalls that, although the formalities of registration allow for official recognition of workers’ or employers’ organizations, these formalities should not become an obstacle to the exercise of legitimate trade union activities nor allow for undue discretionary power to deny or delay the establishment of such organizations. Accordingly, the Committee requests the Government to: (i) engage without delay in consultations with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations to assess the need to further simplify the registration requirements, including those relating to union headquarters; and (ii) take the necessary measures to effectively address the alleged obstacles to registration in practice, so as not to impede the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing. In the absence of the solicited information, the Committee also requests the Government once again to provide information on the number of registered organizations and the number of organizations denied or delayed registration (including the grounds for refusal or modification) during the reporting period.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration. The Committee notes that the ITUC alleges that trade union activity is severely restricted by the power of national prosecutors to control trade union activities, for instance by reviewing general and ad hoc decisions of unions, conducting inspections directly or through other state bodies, and enjoying free and unlimited access to trade union offices; and further alleges that, in the exercise of these broad capacities, prosecutors questioned several times the lawfulness of trade union operations, requested numerous documents (registration forms, membership records with original membership application forms, minutes of meetings, resolutions, etc.) and, if not satisfied with the unions’ financial reporting, ordered additional reports, thereby overstepping the powers provided by the law. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, while public prosecutors no longer have the right to control the legality of the establishment of the civil society organizations, they retain the power to control the legality of their operation. The Committee generally recalls that acts as described by the ITUC would be incompatible with the right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments with respect to the specific ITUC allegations above.

Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities. The Committee had previously noted that: (i) the Strike Act, as amended, states that the degree and condition of the minimum level of service may be established by law, and that, in the absence of such regulation, they shall be agreed upon by the parties during the pre-strike negotiations or, failing such agreement, they shall be determined by final decision of the court; and (ii) excessive minimum levels of service are fixed for passenger transportation public services by Act XLI of 2012 (Passenger Transport Services Act), both at the local and suburban levels (66 per cent) and at national and regional levels (50 per cent); as well as with regard to postal services by Act CLIX of 2012 (Postal Services Act), for the collection and delivery of official documents and other mail. The Committee trusted, in view of the consultations undertaken on the modification of the Strike Act, that due account would be taken of its comments during the legislative review.

The Committee notes that the Government refers again to the relevant provisions of the Strike Act (section 4(2) and (3)) and to the Passenger Transport Services Act and Postal Services Act. In the Government’s view, by regulating the extent of sufficient services in respect of two basic services that substantially affect the public and thus creating a pre-clarified situation, the legislature promoted legal certainty in the context of the exercise of the right to strike. The level of sufficient services was determined seeking to resolve the potential tension between the exercisability of the right to strike and the fulfilment of the State’s responsibilities to satisfy public needs. The Government further indicates that negotiations on the amendment of the Strike Act took place in the framework of the VKF throughout 2015 and 2016, in the course of which the trade unions considered that the extent of sufficient services in the passenger transport sector was excessive. The employees’ and employers’ sides managed to agree on a few aspects of the amendment of the Strike Act, but failed to reach an agreement regarding, inter alia, which institution should be authorized to determine the extent of sufficient services in the absence of a legal provision or agreement. Stressing the importance of a compromise of the social partners on the amendment proposals of the Strike Act, the Government adds that, since the trade unions had announced proposals at the end of 2016 but had not submitted them during the first half of the year, no further discussions have taken place in 2017. The Committee further notes that the workers’ group of the National ILO Council reiterates that the strike legislation contains an obligation to provide sufficient service during strike action which in some sectors virtually precludes the exercise of the right to strike (for example by requiring 66 per cent of the service to be provided during the strike and ensuring the feasibility of this rate through extremely complicated rules).

The Committee recalls that, since the establishment of a minimum service restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests, workers’ organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in establishing the minimum service, together with employers and public authorities; and emphasizes the importance of adopting explicit legislative provisions on the participation of the organizations concerned in the definition of minimum services. Moreover, any disagreement on such services should be resolved by a joint or independent body responsible for examining rapidly and without formalities the difficulties raised by the definition and application of such a minimum service, and empowered to issue enforceable decisions. The Committee further recalls that the minimum service must genuinely and exclusively be a minimum service, that is one which is limited to the operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population or the minimum requirements of the service, while maintaining the effectiveness of the pressure brought to bear; and that, in the past, it has considered that a requirement of 50 per cent of the volume of transportation may considerably restrict the right of transport workers to take industrial action. The Committee therefore once again highlights the need to amend the relevant laws (including the Strike Act, the Passenger Transport Services Act and the Postal Services Act) in order to ensure that the workers’ organizations concerned may participate in the definition of a minimum service and that, where no agreement is possible, the matter is referred to a joint or independent body. The Committee expects that the consultations on the modification of the Strike Act undertaken within the framework of the VKF will continue. It requests the Government to provide up-to-date information on the status or results of the negotiations with particular regard to the manner of determining minimum services and the levels imposed in the postal and passenger transport sectors, and expects that the Committee’s comments will be duly taken into consideration during the legislative review.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

The Committee notes the observations received on 1 September 2017 from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), which are reflected in the present observation. It also notes the observations of the workers’ group of the National ILO Council at its meeting of 11 September 2017, included in the Government’s report, which relate to issues under examination by the Committee and contain allegations that Act XLII of 2015 resulted in trade unions formerly established in the area of civilian national security not being able to operate properly. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Freedom of expression. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted with concern that sections 8 and 9 of the 2012 Labour Code prohibit workers from engaging in any conduct, including the exercise of their right to express an opinion – whether during or outside working time – that may jeopardize the employer’s reputation or legitimate economic and organizational interests, and explicitly provide for the possibility to restrict workers’ personal rights in this regard. The Committee had requested the Government to provide detailed information on the results of the “For Employment” project, under which an assessment of the impact of the Labour Code on employers and workers had been undertaken, as well as on the outcome of the consultations on the modification of the Labour Code within the framework of the Permanent Consultation Forum of the Market Sector and the Government (VKF). The Committee had expressed the hope that the review of the Labour Code would fully take into account its comments with respect to the need to take any necessary measures to ensure respect for freedom of expression. The Committee notes that the Government confines itself to indicating that the negotiations in question have not been closed yet. The Committee regrets that no information has been provided by the Government on the outcome of the “For Employment” project (completed in August 2015) or on the consultations undertaken since 2015 within the framework of the VKF with a view to elaborating consensus-based proposals for the review of the Labour Code. The Committee highlights once again the need to take all necessary, including legislative, measures to guarantee that sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code do not impede the freedom of expression of workers and the exercise of the mandate of trade unions and their leaders to defend the occupational interests of their members, and expects that its comments will be fully taken into account in the framework of the ongoing review of the Labour Code. It requests the Government to provide information on any progress achieved in this respect.

Article 2 of the Convention. Registration of trade unions. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the allegation of the workers’ group of the National ILO Council that numerous rules in the new Civil Code concerning the establishment of trade unions (for example, on trade union headquarters and the verification of its legal usage) obstructed their registration in practice. The Committee had requested the Government to: (i) assess without delay, in consultation with the social partners, the need to simplify the registration requirements, including those relating to union headquarters, as well as the ensuing obligation to bring the trade union by-laws into line with the Civil Code on or before 15 March 2016; and (ii) take the necessary steps to effectively address the difficulties signalled with respect to registration in practice, so as not to hinder the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing. The Committee had also requested the Government to provide information on the number of registered organizations and the number of organizations denied or delayed registration (including the grounds for refusal or modification) during the reporting period.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Act CLXXIX of 2016 on the amendment and acceleration of proceedings regarding the registration of civil society organizations and companies, which entered into force on 1 January 2017, amended the 2011 Association Act, the 2013 Civil Code and the 2011 Civil Organization Registration Act. The legislative amendments were adopted to: (i) simplify the contents of association statutes; (ii) rationalize the court registration and change registration procedures of civil society organizations (court examination limited to compliance with essential legal requirements on number of founders, representative bodies, operation, mandatory content of statutes, legal association objectives, etc.; notices to supply missing information no longer issued on account of minor errors); and (iii) accelerate the registration by courts of civil society organizations (termination of the public prosecutor’s power to control the legality of civil society organizations; maximum time limit for registration). The Committee notes, however, that the ITUC reiterates that trade union registration regulated by the Civil Organization Registration Act is still being subjected to very strict requirements and numerous rules that operate in practice as a means to obstruct the registration of new trade unions, including the stringent requirements on trade union headquarters (unions need to prove that they have the right to use the property), and alleges that in many cases judges refused to register a union because of minor flaws in the application form and forced unions to include the enterprise name in their official names. The Committee further notes that the workers’ group of the National ILO Council states that, when the new Civil Code entered into force, all trade unions had to modify their statutes to be consistent with the law and at the same time report the changes to the courts, and reiterates that these regulations pose a serious administrative burden on trade unions.

The Committee observes the persisting divergence between the statements of the Government and the workers’ organizations. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on the observations of the ITUC and the workers’ group of the National ILO Council concerning in particular the stringent requirements in relation to union headquarters, the alleged refusal of registration due to minor flaws, the alleged imposition of including the company name in the official name of associations, and the alleged difficulties created or encountered by trade unions because of the obligation to bring their by-laws into line with the Civil Code. The Committee recalls that, although the formalities of registration allow for official recognition of workers’ or employers’ organizations, these formalities should not become an obstacle to the exercise of legitimate trade union activities nor allow for undue discretionary power to deny or delay the establishment of such organizations. Accordingly, the Committee requests the Government to: (i) engage without delay in consultations with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations to assess the need to further simplify the registration requirements, including those relating to union headquarters; and (ii) take the necessary measures to effectively address the alleged obstacles to registration in practice, so as not to impede the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing. In the absence of the solicited information, the Committee also requests the Government once again to provide information on the number of registered organizations and the number of organizations denied or delayed registration (including the grounds for refusal or modification) during the reporting period.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration. The Committee notes that the ITUC alleges that trade union activity is severely restricted by the power of national prosecutors to control trade union activities, for instance by reviewing general and ad hoc decisions of unions, conducting inspections directly or through other state bodies, and enjoying free and unlimited access to trade union offices; and further alleges that, in the exercise of these broad capacities, prosecutors questioned several times the lawfulness of trade union operations, requested numerous documents (registration forms, membership records with original membership application forms, minutes of meetings, resolutions, etc.) and, if not satisfied with the unions’ financial reporting, ordered additional reports, thereby overstepping the powers provided by the law. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, while public prosecutors no longer have the right to control the legality of the establishment of the civil society organizations, they retain the power to control the legality of their operation. The Committee generally recalls that acts as described by the ITUC would be incompatible with the right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments with respect to the specific ITUC allegations above.

Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities. The Committee had previously noted that: (i) the Strike Act, as amended, states that the degree and condition of the minimum level of service may be established by law, and that, in the absence of such regulation, they shall be agreed upon by the parties during the pre-strike negotiations or, failing such agreement, they shall be determined by final decision of the court; and (ii) excessive minimum levels of service are fixed for passenger transportation public services by Act XLI of 2012 (Passenger Transport Services Act), both at the local and suburban levels (66 per cent) and at national and regional levels (50 per cent); as well as with regard to postal services by Act CLIX of 2012 (Postal Services Act), for the collection and delivery of official documents and other mail. The Committee trusted, in view of the consultations undertaken on the modification of the Strike Act, that due account would be taken of its comments during the legislative review.

The Committee notes that the Government refers again to the relevant provisions of the Strike Act (section 4(2) and (3)) and to the Passenger Transport Services Act and Postal Services Act. In the Government’s view, by regulating the extent of sufficient services in respect of two basic services that substantially affect the public and thus creating a pre-clarified situation, the legislature promoted legal certainty in the context of the exercise of the right to strike. The level of sufficient services was determined seeking to resolve the potential tension between the exercisability of the right to strike and the fulfilment of the State’s responsibilities to satisfy public needs. The Government further indicates that negotiations on the amendment of the Strike Act took place in the framework of the VKF throughout 2015 and 2016, in the course of which the trade unions considered that the extent of sufficient services in the passenger transport sector was excessive. The employees’ and employers’ sides managed to agree on a few aspects of the amendment of the Strike Act, but failed to reach an agreement regarding, inter alia, which institution should be authorized to determine the extent of sufficient services in the absence of a legal provision or agreement. Stressing the importance of a compromise of the social partners on the amendment proposals of the Strike Act, the Government adds that, since the trade unions had announced proposals at the end of 2016 but had not submitted them during the first half of the year, no further discussions have taken place in 2017. The Committee further notes that the workers’ group of the National ILO Council reiterates that the strike legislation contains an obligation to provide sufficient service during strike action which in some sectors virtually precludes the exercise of the right to strike (for example by requiring 66 per cent of the service to be provided during the strike and ensuring the feasibility of this rate through extremely complicated rules).

The Committee recalls that, since the establishment of a minimum service restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests, workers’ organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in establishing the minimum service, together with employers and public authorities; and emphasizes the importance of adopting explicit legislative provisions on the participation of the organizations concerned in the definition of minimum services. Moreover, any disagreement on such services should be resolved by a joint or independent body responsible for examining rapidly and without formalities the difficulties raised by the definition and application of such a minimum service, and empowered to issue enforceable decisions. The Committee further recalls that the minimum service must genuinely and exclusively be a minimum service, that is one which is limited to the operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population or the minimum requirements of the service, while maintaining the effectiveness of the pressure brought to bear; and that, in the past, it has considered that a requirement of 50 per cent of the volume of transportation may considerably restrict the right of transport workers to take industrial action. The Committee therefore once again highlights the need to amend the relevant laws (including the Strike Act, the Passenger Transport Services Act and the Postal Services Act) in order to ensure that the workers’ organizations concerned may participate in the definition of a minimum service and that, where no agreement is possible, the matter is referred to a joint or independent body. The Committee expects that the consultations on the modification of the Strike Act undertaken within the framework of the VKF will continue. It requests the Government to provide up-to-date information on the status or results of the negotiations with particular regard to the manner of determining minimum services and the levels imposed in the postal and passenger transport sectors, and expects that the Committee’s comments will be duly taken into consideration during the legislative review.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

The Committee notes the observations from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2015, which mainly concern allegations pertaining to the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). It also notes the observations of the workers’ group of the National ILO Council at its meeting of 3 September 2014 included in the Government’s report, as well as the Government’s comments thereon. The Committee notes the observations from the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) received on 1 September 2015, which are of a general nature.

Freedom of expression. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted with concern that sections 8 and 9 of the newly adopted Labour Code prohibit any conduct of workers including the exercise of their right to express an opinion – whether during or outside working time – that may jeopardize the employer’s reputation or legitimate economic and organizational interests; and explicitly provide for the possibility to restrict the workers’ personal rights in this regard. The Committee had invited the Government to assess, in consultation with the social partners, the need for amending these provisions so as to ensure the respect of freedom of expression. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that: (i) an assessment of the impact of the Labour Code on employers and employees was undertaken as part of the “For Employment” project, which was implemented between 1 September 2013 and 31 August 2015 and consisted of various workshops and official presentations, and, while the results of the project are not yet available, in order to be able to achieve its objective, the review and modification of the Labour Code was included in the legislative schedule for 2015; and (ii) as agreed with the social partners in December 2014, consultations are being undertaken since February 2015 on the modification of the Labour Code within the framework of the Permanent Consultation Forum of the Market Sector and the Government, a forum composed of tripartite theme-based expert groups, that deliberates on the matters raised by the Committee, and that is due to present consensus-based proposals for modification. The Committee notes that the workers’ group of the National ILO Council questions the efficiency and effectiveness of these consultations. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the results of the “For Employment” project as well as on the outcome of the consultations within the framework of the Permanent Consultation Forum of the Market Sector and the Government. The Committee expresses the hope that the review of the Labour Code will fully take into account the Committee’s comments with respect to the need to take any necessary measures, including legislative amendments, to guarantee that sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code do not impede freedom of expression and the exercise of the mandate of trade unions and their leaders to defend the occupational interests of their members. It requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.

Article 2 of the Convention. Registration of trade unions. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the allegation of the workers’ group of the National ILO Council that numerous rules in the new Civil Code concerning the establishment of trade unions (for example, on trade union headquarters and the verification of its legal usage) obstructed their registration in practice. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that: (i) based on the experience so far (most of all, the small number of pending judicial proceedings), the requirements of the new Civil Code have not made it significantly more difficult for trade unions to be registered; (ii) unless trade unions pursue activities which require a licence, they may pursue their activities automatically after being registered by the court; and (iii) the Civil Organization Registration Act of 2011 permits the registration of an association by the court within the framework of a simplified registration procedure (duration of 15 days). The Committee notes that the workers’ group of the National ILO Council reiterates that the relevant provisions made the registration of trade unions and the modification of the articles of association of already registered trade unions so difficult that it is basically impossible for them to function. Noting the divergence between the statements of the Government and the workers’ organizations, and recalling that registration should be a mere formality, the Committee requests the Government to: (i) assess without delay, in consultation with the social partners, the need to simplify the registration requirements, including those relating to union headquarters, as well as the ensuing obligation to bring the trade union by-laws into line with the Civil Code on or before 15 March 2016; and (ii) take the necessary steps to effectively address the difficulties signalled with respect to registration in practice, so that the right of workers to establish organizations of their own choosing is not hindered. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the number of registered organizations and the number of organizations denied or delayed registration (including the grounds for refusal or modification) during the reporting period.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that: (i) section 3(3) of the Act on Strikes, as amended in 2010, states that the degree and condition of the minimum level of service may be established by law, and that, in the absence of such regulation, they shall be agreed upon by the parties during the pre-strike negotiations; or, failing such agreement, they shall be determined by final decision of the court; and (ii) the Government had indicated that based on trade union applications to the courts for determination of minimum services, it became necessary to amend and clarify the provisions of the Act on Strikes with respect to services where parties could frequently not agree (public transport and postal services) so as to guarantee a predictable service level for users. In reply to the Committee’s request for information, the Government indicates that: (i) the Act XLI of 2012 on passenger transport service (Passenger Transport Services Act) states that for the period affected by the strike, the minimum level of service for local and suburban passenger transportation public services is 66 per cent; and the minimum service for national and regional passenger transportation public services is 50 per cent; and (ii) with regard to postal services, section 34(3) of the Act CLIX of 2012 on postal services (Postal Services Act) states that in case of a strike, official documents must be collected at least four days a week and shall be delivered within a period no more than 50 per cent longer than the specified time frame; and other mail shall be collected at least on every second working day and delivered within a period no more than twice as long. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that, as agreed with the social partners in December 2014, consultations are currently being undertaken on the modification of the Strike Act within the framework of the Permanent Consultation Forum of the Market Sector and the Government; and that the Committee’s comments are being discussed in these consultations. The Committee notes that the workers’ group of the National ILO Council questions the efficiency and effectiveness of these consultations, and alleges that it is practically impossible to organize or maintain a lawful strike because the Strikes Act establishes the definition, degree and volume of passenger transportation public services and postal services in such detail, and because the Act prescribes an unreasonably high minimum level of service.

The Committee recalls that, since the establishment of a minimum service restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests, workers’ organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in establishing the minimum service, together with employers and public authorities. The parties might also envisage the establishment of a joint or independent body responsible for examining rapidly and without formalities the difficulties raised by the definition and application of such a minimum service, and empowered to issue enforceable decisions. The Committee further recalls that the minimum service must genuinely and exclusively be a minimum service, that is one which is limited to the operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population or the minimum requirements of the service, while maintaining the effectiveness of the pressure brought to bear; and that, in the past, it has considered that a requirement of 50 per cent of the volume of transportation may considerably restrict the right of transport workers to take industrial action. The Committee therefore highlights the need to amend the relevant laws (including the Strike Act, the Passenger Transport Services Act and the Postal Services Act), in order to ensure that the workers’ organizations concerned may participate in the definition of a minimum service and that, where no agreement is possible, the matter is referred to a joint or independent body. In view of the consultations currently being undertaken on the modification of the Strike Act, the Committee trusts that due account will be taken of its comments during the legal review, and requests the Government to provide information on any progress achieved in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

The Committee notes the Government's comments on the 2012 observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC). It also notes the observations of the workers’ side of the National ILO Council at its meeting of 3 September 2014 included in the report, as well as the Government’s comments thereon.

Freedom of expression. In its previous comment, the Committee had noted with concern that sections 8 and 9 of the newly adopted Labour Code prohibit any conduct of workers including the exercise of their right to express an opinion – whether during or outside working time – that may jeopardize the employer’s reputation or legitimate economic and organizational interests; and explicitly provide for the possibility to restrict the workers’ personal rights in this regard. The Committee had invited the Government to review these provisions by assessing the need for amending these provisions so as to guarantee the respect of freedom of expression.

The Committee notes the Government’s indications that: (i) as regards the legitimate economic interests of the employer, they are constituted by all that is related to the legitimate economic activities, whereas no protection is provided for employer interests which cannot be deemed legitimate; (ii) the conduct jeopardising the legitimate economic interests of the employer includes typically, but is not limited, to work carried out by the employee for other employers or membership in a business corporation of identical scope of activities as the employer; (iii) as regards the employer’s reputation, the fundamental right of freedom of speech is restricted to such an extent that the fundamental right of the employer to his reputation is not infringed out of proportion; and (iv) the Government is not aware of any problem arising with respect to the application of these provisions in effect for the past two years. The Committee recalls that the full exercise of trade union rights calls for a free flow of information, opinions and ideas and, to this end, workers, employers and their organizations should enjoy freedom of expression at their meetings, in their publications and in the course of other trade union activities. Nevertheless, the Committee underlines that, in expressing their opinions, trade unions and their leaders need to respect the limits of propriety and refrain from the use of insulting language. Considering that the broad wording of section 8 could entail serious restrictions to freedom of expression, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the steps contemplated to guarantee that the implementation of sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code does not impede the exercise of the mandate of trade unions and their leaders to defend the occupational interests of their members; and to assess, in consultation with the social partners, the need for their amendment so as to ensure the respect of the principle set out above.

Article 2 of the Convention. Registration of trade unions. The Committee notes the allegation of the workers’ side of the National ILO Council that the enforcement and legal interpretation of the numerous rules in Act V of 2013 on the Civil Code concerning the establishment of trade unions (for example, on trade union headquarters and the verification of its legal usage) significantly hamper the registration of trade unions. It also notes that the Government states that the new Civil Code seeks to regulate in the most comprehensive manner possible the common rules for legal entities, and that the articles of incorporation of trade unions do not need to be brought into line with the new Civil Code until their amendment or until 15 March 2016 at the latest. In view of the allegation that the numerous rules in the Civil Code concerning the establishment of trade unions obstruct their registration in practice, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the conditions for the granting of registration are not tantamount to a de facto requirement for previous authorization from the public authorities to establish a trade union, and to review in consultation with the social partners the need for simplifying the requirements for registration of workers’ and employers’ organizations.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities. The Committee previously noted that the ITUC alleged that as a result of the 2010 amendment of Act VII of 1989 on strikes (Act on Strikes), there were growing difficulties in exercising the right to strike in practice; and that, as confirmed by the Government, trade union applications for determination of the minimum level of service in the sectors of transport by road and rail had often been rejected by the courts due to formal deficiencies and, consequently, no strikes had been staged in the relevant sectors in 2011. The Committee had requested the Government to take steps to ensure that the application in practice of section 4 of the Act on Strikes as amended, did not impede the lawful exercise of the right to strike.

The Committee notes the copy of the Act on Strikes as last amended supplied by the Government and observes that, according to its section 4(3), the level of service deemed sufficient and the related requirements may be defined by an act of Parliament; or, if there is none, they shall be agreed upon by the parties during the pre-strike negotiations; or, failing such agreement, they shall be determined by final decision of the court of public administration and labour. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that: (i) the wording of the Act on Strikes as amended offers less opportunity to abuse the right to strike as occurred occasionally under the previous legislation and encourages the parties to reach an agreement on minimum services; (ii) based on the recent practice regarding trade union applications to the courts for determination of minimum services, it became necessary to amend and clarify the provisions of the Act on Strikes with respect to services where parties could frequently not agree, so as to guarantee a predictable service level for users; (iii) therefore the definition of the still adequate service was included in Act XLI of 2012 on passenger transport service, which means that transport employees are not hindered by the lack of regulation in starting a strike; and (iv) for the same reasons, Act CLIX of 2012 on postal services stipulates the extent and conditions of the still adequate services regarding postal services. The Committee also notes the views of the workers’ side of the National ILO Council that: (i) the Act on Strikes as amended in 2010 tightens the requirements of minimum services stipulating that strikes cannot be launched in a legal manner as long as the issue has not been settled by the parties; and (ii) with regard to public transport, the act defines minimum services during a strike, but in such a manner that it calls into question the pressure a strike can exert. Recalling that minimum services should be confined to operations that are strictly necessary to ensure that the basic needs of the users of the relevant service are met, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the minimum services prescribed for the public transport and postal sectors and to transmit copies of the relevant laws and regulations. More generally, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that, failing agreement of the parties, applications to the courts for determination of the minimum service level are expeditiously decided upon so as not to unduly impede the exercise of the right to strike.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2015.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

The Committee notes the comments of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 31 July 2012 on the application of the Convention.

The Committee also notes the adoption on 13 December 2011 of Act I of 2012 enacting the Labour Code.

Freedom of expression. The Committee notes with concern that, despite its previous comments in this respect with regard to the draft law, sections 8 and 9 of the newly adopted Labour Code continue to prohibit any conduct of workers including the exercise of their right to express an opinion – whether during or outside working time – that may jeopardize the employer’s reputation or legitimate economic and organizational interests; and explicitly provide for the possibility to restrict the workers’ personal rights in this regard. The Committee recalls that the freedom of opinion and expression and, in particular, the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers, constitute civil liberties which are essential for the normal exercise of trade union rights (see General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work in light of the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization, 2008, paragraph 59). The Committee invites the Government to review sections 8 and 9 of the Labour Code by assessing, in consultation with the social partners, the need for amending these provisions so as to guarantee the respect of the principle enounced above. It requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this respect.

Article 3. Exercise of the right to strike in practice. The Committee notes that: (i) the ITUC states that, as a result of the 2010 amendment of Act VII of 1989 on strikes, there are growing difficulties in exercising the right to strike in practice, and provides examples of cases in which trade union applications for determination of the minimum level of service were either not decided upon or rejected by the court due to the union’s “vested interest in determining the conditions” of minimum services; and (ii) the Government indicates that trade unions often submitted applications to the labour court to determine the minimum level of service in the sectors of transport by road and rail, which were rejected by the court due to formal deficiencies and without substantive examination, and that, consequently, no strikes have been staged in the relevant sectors in 2011. The Committee requests the Government to take steps to ensure that the application in practice of section 4 of Act VII of 1989, as amended, does not impede the lawful exercise of the right to strike. It also requests the Government once again to provide, in its next report, a copy of the amendment dated 1 December 2010 of Act VII of 1989 on strikes.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

The Committee notes the comments of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 4 August 2011 on the application of the Convention, as well as the Government’s observations thereon. The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, a copy of the amendment dated 31 December 2010 of Act VII of 1989 on strikes.

The Committee also notes that a new Labour Code is being drafted, and that its section 8 provides that:

• (1) Employees may not manifest practices during the term of employment that may jeopardize the lawful economic interests of their employers unless authorized by a rule of law.
• (2) Employees may likewise not manifest practices outside working time, in particular, based on the nature of their job or position within the organization that may directly and actually lead to the incorrect judgement of the employer’s prestige or may jeopardize the employer’s lawful economic interests or the purpose of employment.
• (3) Pursuant to section 9, subsection (2), the employee’s freedom of expression may be restricted.

In this regard, the Committee recalls that the freedom of opinion and expression and, in particular, the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers, constitute civil liberties which are essential for the normal exercise of trade union rights (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 25 and 38). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend this provision so as to ensure that the principle enounced above is duly taken into account, and to provide a copy of the new Labour Code once adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee takes note of the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) in a communication dated 10 August 2006. It observes that they refer to questions related to the application of Convention No. 98.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee takes notes of the Government’s report.

The Committee takes note of the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU). It observes that they refer to questions related to the application of Convention No. 98.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes the information in the Government’s report and the accompanying comments made on the report by the workers’ representatives sitting on the National ILO Council as regards the insufficient protective measures against anti-union discrimination. The Committee will consider these comments and the Government’s reply thereto in the context of its regular supervision of Convention No. 98.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its last report.

1. The Committee notes, according to the Government's report, that the Act No. 13 of 1993 concerning the protection of trade union property (Magyar Közlöny, 12 March 1993, No. 29, pages 1547-1553) and amending Act No. 28 of 11 July 1991 (Magyar Közlöny, 17 July 1991, No. 80, pages 1725-1733), reproduces the agreement that it had concluded concerning the distribution of trade union property, with the National Association of Trade Unions (MSZOSZ) and the six National Confederations of Trade Unions. According to the Government, the Act No. 13 guarantees that such property will be so distributed that all trade unions will be placed on an equal footing so as to be able to act in full independence.

2. With regard to the distinction between the most representative trade unions and the others under the provisions of Act No. 33 of 2 June 1992 respecting public employees (Magyar Közlöny, No. 56, pages 1953-1964), the Committee notes that in the event of a dispute as to the representativeness of an organization, section 5(3) of the Act provides that the dispute must, at the request of one of the parties concerned, be settled by a court in non-adversarial proceedings and that, as a general rule, the provisions of Act No. 33 do not prevent minority organizations from organizing their activities and representing their members in the event of individual complaints. The Committee considers that the legislation on public employees is not inconsistent with the requirements of the Convention on these points.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

With reference to its previous direct request concerning the effect given in practice to section 3(3) of Act No. VII of 1989 on the right to strike, which provides that a strike may be prohibited on the grounds that it constitutes a threat to the environment, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report to the effect that this section applies in cases in which: (i) a strike directly and seriously endangers life, personal health and physical integrity in certain sections of health care institutions (such as surgical wards in hospitals); (ii) a strike directly and seriously endangers the environment in places where hazardous materials or energy are used (such as nuclear power stations); and (iii) a strike takes place in services of which the principal function (such as fire services) or the secondary function (such as transport services) is to participate in the prevention of natural disasters. The Government adds that the courts have not yet ruled that a strike is illegal on the grounds that it constitutes a serious threat to the environment.

The Committee recalls that restrictions on the right to strike should be confined to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or to essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is those whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. In the Committee's opinion, transport services do not constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term.

It therefore requests the Government to ensure that section 3(3) of Act No. VII of 1989 is not applied in practice to prevent workers in transport services and their organizations from going on strike as a means of defending their economic and social interests. The Committee also requests the Government to state in its next report whether, during the period covered by the report, the courts have forbidden strikes under this section and, if so, to supply the text of any ruling made in this respect.

The Committee once again requests the Government to supply a copy of Act No. 33 of 1992 establishing the conditions of employment of public employees.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes the Government's report and its reply to the comments made by the National Confederation of Hungarian Trade Unions (MSZOSZ).

1. The Committee recalls that, according to the MSZOSZ, Act No. 28 of 11 July 1991 respecting the protection of trade union property and Act No. 29 of 11 July 1991 respecting the voluntary nature of the payment of trade union membership dues impair the right of trade unions to organize the management of their property freely.

According to the Government, Act No. 28 of 1991 endeavours to resolve the contradictions which existed in respect of the property rights of trade unions and to ensure that these rights can be exercised equally by all trade unions. The Act therefore provides for a transitional period in the management of trade union assets while awaiting their definitive distribution. The Government also states that in December 1992 an agreement was concluded with the MSZOSZ and the National Council of Trade Unions (NCTU) on the distribution of trade union assets. This agreement was introduced in an Act which was adopted by the Parliament in February 1993.

The Committee notes this information. It hopes that the Act of February 1993 will make it possible to resolve the issue of the distribution of the assets covered by Act No. 28 of 1991 in such a manner that the possibility of effectively exercising their activities in full independence is guaranteed on an equal footing to all trade unions. The Committee asks the Government and the trade union organizations concerned to confirm this.

2. With regard to Act No. 29 of 1991 on the voluntary payment of trade union membership dues, the Government points out that under section 1 of the Act the employer may only deduct dues from the worker's wages if the worker gives explicit authorization in writing specifying the amount, purpose and beneficiary of the amount deducted. It is also prohibited for employers to discriminate between workers or different trade union organizations.

In view of this information, the Committee considers that Act No. 29 of 1991 does not jeopardize the safeguards set out in the Convention since it does not establish any discrimination between trade union organizations and does not therefore prejudice the right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing.

3. With regard to the comments of the MSZOSZ relating to the distinction made between the most representative trade unions and other organizations under the provisions of the Labour Code and Act No. 33 of 1992 establishing the conditions of employment of public employees, the Government states that sections 23 and 29 of the Labour Code establish a right of objection against measures (or acts of negligence) by the employer in respect of trade unions which are recognized for that employer. Trade unions which are not recognized have the right, under section 199(l), to initiate legal proceedings against a measure (or act of negligence) by an employer which violates the appropriate employment regulations or in support of claims deriving from the employment relationship. The Government adds that the Labour Code also establishes two methods of determining the representative status of trade unions for the purposes of collective bargaining and the conclusion of collective agreements (section 33).

The Committee considers that the provisions of the Labour Code do not prevent minority organizations from organizing their activities and representing their members in the case of individual claims. The Committee therefore considers that they are not contrary to the requirements of the Convention.

The Committee will examine Act No. 33 of 1992 establishing the conditions of employment of public employees, with respect to the application of the Convention, as soon as the text is made available to it.

4. The Committee is addressing a direct request to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

With reference to its requests for information on the application of certain provisions of Act No. II of 1989 on the right to organize and Act No. VII of 1989 on the right to strike, the Committee takes due note of the information supplied by the Government in its report.

The Committee nevertheless asks the Government in its next report to supply information on the practical effect given to section 3(3) of Act No. VII of 1989 on the right to strike indicating, in particular, whether, during the period covered by the report, any strikes were prohibited because they constituted a threat to the environment. It also asks the Government to provide copies of any decisions adopted in this connection.

The Committee also asks the Government to provide a copy of Act No. 33 of 1992 establishing the conditions of employment of public employees.

[The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1993.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee takes note of the comments made by the National Confederation of Hungarian Trade Unions (MSZOSZ) on Law No. 28 of 11 July 1991 respecting the protection of trade union property, equal opportunities of association for workers and equal opportunities of operation for their organizations, and Law No. 29 of 11 July 1991 respecting the voluntary nature of the payment of trade union membership dues, which, according to the MSZOSZ, impaired the right of trade unions to organize the management of their property freely, and on the provisions of the Labour Code of 1992 and of Act No. 33 of 1992 issuing the conditions of employment of public employees, which make a distinction between the most representative trade unions and the others.

The Committee asks the Government to respond to these comments and to submit any observations it may deem appropriate so that the Committee can address these specific questions at its next meeting.

[The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1993.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

With reference to the new laws that have been adopted recently, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply information on the following points:

Article 2 of the Convention. Within what period of time must the attorney general transmit courts' decision to give effect to a request to register a trade union organisation (section 15 of Act No. II of 1989)?

Article 3. What is the scope of section 3(1)(c) of Act No. VII of 1989 on the right to strike which prohibits the calling of a strike to challenge any individual act or omission on the part of an employer which could be settled by judicial means, and section 3(3) of the same Act, which prohibits the calling of a strike if it constitutes a threat to the environment? In addition, what is the scope of section 1(3) according to which any abuse of the right to strike is prohibited?

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

With reference to the observations that it has been making for several years, the Committee notes with satisfaction the adoption of the new Constitution, dated 18 October 1989, and of Act No. II of 1989 on the right to organise and Act No. VII of 1989 on the right to strike, which establish the possibility of trade union pluralism and guarantee workers the right to call strikes to defend their economic and social interests. In this connection, the Committee notes that several independent trade unions from the pre-existing trade union structure have been registered.

The Committee is addressing a direct request for information on certain points to the Government.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

The right of workers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish organisations of their own choosing to further and defend their interests (Articles 2, 3 and 10 of the Convention). In its previous comments the Committee noted that under the terms of the Labour Code of 1967, as amended, and of Decree No. 34 of 1967, issued thereunder, the National Council of Trade Unions (SZOT), referred to by name in the legislation (sections 8, 12 and 17), exercised the exclusive function of trade union representation at the higher level (the expressing opinions and giving advice to the Council of Ministers concerning regulations respecting the living and working conditions of employees, supervising the protection of the safety and health of workers and operating the social insurance scheme, among other functions). It requested the Government to take steps to guarantee to workers who may wish to do so, the possibility of establishing trade unions outside the existing trade union structure.

The Committee notes with interest the Government's statements in its report to the effect that sections 8 and 12 of the Labour Code have been amended by Act No. XI of 1987, which came into force on 1 January 1988. These provisions no longer refer by name to the National Council of Trade Unions and make reference only to trade unions in general. Another provision refers to "trade union bodies at the workplace" and this expression, according to the Government, means "any trade union" and not "a certain trade union". Furthermore, the Government indicates that a Decree issued under the Labour Code of 1967 is no longer in force and that section 17 of the Labour Code has been amended by section 9(6) of Legislative Decree No. 5 of 1984 to transfer the operation of social insurance to the State.

Finally, the Government states that during the period covered by the report two independent trade unions were registered, namely the Democratic Trade Union of Scientific Workers and the Democratic Trade Union of the Cinema. The Committee welcomes this information.

In addition, the Committee has been informed that the Government envisages the adoption of legislative reforms, including the reform of the Constitution. In this regard:

(a) the Committee hopes that the new Constitution will guarantee workers and employers the right to establish free organisations, to organise their administration and to formulate their programmes in full freedom and without interference from the public authorities, in order to further and defend the interests of their members;

(b) the Committee also hopes that it will be possible to provide for the right of workers to call strikes as one of the means available to them to further and defend their economic, social and occupational interests.

It requests the Government to supply information in its next report on developments in the situation.