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

In order to provide a view of all the issues relating to the application of the ratified Conventions on working time, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 106 (weekly rest in commerce and offices) and 132 (annual holidays with pay) in a single comment.

The Committee notes the observations of the Trade Union Confederation “Nezavisnost” on the implementation of Conventions Nos 106 and 132, communicated with the Government’s report. It also notes the observations of the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Serbia (CATUS) on the implementation of Conventions Nos 106 and 132, communicated with the Government’s report.

Weekly rest

Article 8 of the Convention. Temporary exemptions. The Committee notes that according to section 67(5) of the Labour Law, if it is indispensable that an employee works on the day of his weekly rest, the employer is bound to provide him a rest of at least 24 straight hours in the subsequent week. The Committee observes that section 67 allows for temporary exceptions to the general weekly rest standard without identifying the specific circumstances in which it becomes indispensable that an employee works during weekly rest days. The Committee recalls that Article 8, paragraph 1, of the Convention sets out specific conditions under which temporary exemptions may be granted (e.g. accident, urgent work, force majeure). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that temporary exceptions are only authorized in the cases provided for in this Article of the Convention and after consulting the representative employers' and workers' organizations concerned.

Annual holidays with pay

Article 7(1) of the Convention. Holiday remuneration. The Committee notes that according to section 114(1) of the Labour Law, during annual leave an employee is entitled to compensation of salary in the amount of average salary for the 12 preceding months. In their observations, “Nezavisnost” and the CATUS indicate that the Labour Law does not prescribe the minimum amount of holiday remuneration, which is misused in practice. “Nezavisnost” indicates that as a result the holiday remuneration is determined in different amounts and the CATUS points to the intention of the employers’ associations to reduce the amount of the wage compensation during the use of annual leave. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Article 7(2). Payment of holiday remuneration in advance. In reply to its previous request, the Committee notes that the Government refers in its report to section 118 of the Labour Law which provides that the employee has the right to holiday remuneration in accordance with the general legislation and the employment contract. In this respect it indicates that the Labour Law does not prescribe more detailed provisions for the exercise of the employee's right to holiday remuneration, but details are prescribed by a collective agreement or labour rulebook, as well as by the employment contract. The Committee also notes that the Government refers to section 110 of the Labour Law which provides for the time of payment of wages but does not specify that an employee should receive such an amount in advance of the holiday, as required under Article 7(2) of the Convention. In its observations, the CATUS indicates that section 114 of the Labour Law which provides for the entitlement to holiday remuneration is not harmonized with the Convention as it does not stipulate that holiday remuneration is paid to an employee in advance of the holiday. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect. The Committee again requests the Government to indicate the way it is ensured that the amounts due as holidays remuneration are paid in advance of the holiday, unless otherwise provided in an agreement applicable to the employee and the employer, as required by Article 7(2) of the Convention.

Articles 11 and 12. Compensation for unused holiday upon termination of employment – Prohibition to relinquish or forgo the right to annual holiday with pay. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the Labour Law did not contain any provisions expressly prohibiting the payment of monetary compensation in lieu of annual leave except in the case of termination of employment (Article 11), and also prohibiting any agreement to relinquish the right to annual holiday with pay or to forgo such holiday for compensation or otherwise (Article 12). The Committee takes note with satisfaction of the amendments introduced to the Labour Law to align its provisions with these Articles of the Convention. It notes that section 68(4) stipulates that the employee cannot waive the right to annual leave, and that that right cannot be denied or replaced by monetary compensation, except in the case of termination of employment. Similarly, section 76 of the Labour Law provides for the payment of monetary compensation in lieu of annual leave only in the case of termination of employment. The Committee takes note of this information, which responds to its previous comment.

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

In order to provide an overview of all the issues relating to the application of the ratified Conventions on working time, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 14 (weekly rest in industry) and 106 (weekly rest in commerce and offices) in a single comment.

The Committee notes the observations of the Trade Union Confederation “Nezavisnost” on the implementation of Convention No 106, communicated with the Government’s report. It also notes the observations of the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Serbia (CATUS) on the implementation of Conventions Nos 14 and 106 communicated with the Government’s report.

Article 2(1), (2) and (3) of Convention No. 14 and Article 6(1), (2) and (3) of the Convention No. 106. Right to weekly rest. Uniformity of weekly rest. Respect of traditions and customs. The Committee notes that in reply to the previous comments of “Nezavisnost”, the Government indicates in its report that following amendments to the Labour Law in 2014, section 67 stipulates that the employee has the right to a weekly rest period of at least 24 continuous hours, which, as a rule, should be taken on Sundays. The Committee notes that in its observations, “Nezavisnost” reiterates its previous indication according to which, despite section 67 of the Labour Law provides for a weekly rest of no less than 24 consecutive hours, in practice, overtime is required so frequently that it prevents workers from exercising their right to weekly rest. According to “Nezavisnost”, such work is often misleadingly referred to by employers as “redistribution of working hours” and is often recorded as “volunteering”. For its part, the CATUS indicates that, while section 67(2) sets Sunday rest as a rule, this is commonly disregarded in the trade sector. It also indicates that despite having submitted several initiatives on the legal prohibition of work on Sundays and national holidays in the trade sector to various governmental bodies since 2016, no concrete action has been taken to address them. Furthermore, recent amendments to the Labour Law in 2014, 2017 and 2018 were made without consulting trade unions, thus failing to align with their goals. The Committee recalls that the principle of uniformity enshrined in Article 2(2) of Convention No. 14 and Article 6(2) of Convention No. 106 refers to the collective character of weekly rest with a view to ensuring, wherever possible, that it is taken at the same time by all workers on the day established by tradition or custom. The social purpose of this principle is to enable workers to take part in community life and in the special forms of recreation available on certain days (2018 General Survey on working-time instruments, paragraph 202). The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments with respect to the observations of “Nezavisnost” and CATUS and to take the necessary measures to ensure the application in practice of the principles enshrined in Article 2 of Convention No. 14 and Article 6 of Convention No. 106.

Article 10 of Convention No. 106. Adequate inspection – Penalties. In reply to its previous comments on the lack of provisions in the Labour Law on sanctions in the event of non-compliance with sections 55 and 56 on hours of work, the Committee notes that the Government refers to: (i) section 269 of the Labour Law, which empowers labour inspectors to issue decisions mandating employers to remedy violations within a specified time frame and established the obligation of employers to inform the labour inspection of compliance within 15 days after the deadline expires; (ii) section 273 which prescribes a penal provision for not acting on the mentioned decisions of the labour inspectors. The Committee also notes that in its observations, the CATUS indicates that the sections referred to by the Government are not an adequate and effective sanction for non-compliance with sections 55 and 56 of the Labour Law. In this sense, the Committee observes that section 269 referred to by the Government does not specifically refer to sanctions. The Committee also notes that the CATUS indicates that: (i) the Government should consider appropriate measures for ensuring proper implementation of legal provisions regarding weekly rest including through adequate inspection mechanisms and effective sanctions for violations of Labour Law provisions on overtime work; (ii) employers generally do not comply with the requirement to formally notify employees of extended working-time schedules and neglect their record-keeping obligations; (iii) there is need for enhanced regulation of working time records under Labour Law given the inadequate application of existing regulations. Furthermore, in its observations, “Nezavisnost” indicates that it maintains its previous comments according to which the labour inspectorate is not effectively detecting infringements of the working-time legislation and imposing sanctions, as the inspectors do not exercise their powers to initiate inspections but only respond to complaints. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.It once again requests the Government to adopt appropriate measures to ensure the proper administration of legal provisions concerning weekly rest, especially by means of adequate inspection and effective sanctions. The Committee refers to its comments under the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) and the Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129).

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Article 6 of the Convention. Right to weekly rest. The Committee notes the comments of the Trade Union Confederation (NEZAVISNOST), dated 18 October 2013, concerning the application of the Convention. The NEZAVISNOST alleges that despite section 67 of the Labour Code, which provides for a weekly rest of no less than 24 consecutive hours, in practice, overtime is required so frequently that it prevents workers from exercising their right to weekly rest. According to the NEZAVISNOST, such work is often misleadingly referred to by employers as “redistribution of working hours”, and is often recorded as “volunteering”. The NEZAVISNOST also alleges that the labour inspectorate is not effectively detecting infringements of the working-time legislation and imposing sanctions, as the inspectors do not exercise their powers to initiate inspections but only respond to complaints. In addition, the NEZAVISNOST gives examples of public and private enterprises, including banks, large public companies and retail chains, which regularly require their employees to perform overtime work and prevent them from using their entitlement to weekly rest. The Committee requests the Government to submit any comments it may wish to make in response to the observations of the NEZAVISNOST.

Article 10. Adequate inspection – Penalties. The Committee notes the explanations provided by the Government in response to previous comments of the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Serbia (CATUS) concerning poor enforcement of working-time legislation. The Government indicates that employers generally do not comply with the requirement to formally notify employees of extended working-time schedules; fail to pay overtime compensation and neglect their record-keeping obligations. The Government also indicates that the Labour Code does not provide for sanctions in the event of non compliance with sections 55 and 56 which are the core provisions on hours of work. The Government adds that infringement of the working-time legislation are observed in nearly all industries and all types of employers, including the banking sector, trade, catering and the construction industry. Moreover, the Government considers that in order to ensure greater efficiency of oversight, record-keeping should be regulated by a new legislative text which would provide for serious sanctions for violations of the provisions of the Labour Code on overtime.

In this connection, the Committee notes the new comments made by CATUS, according to which working-time legislation continues to be insufficiently implemented. The CATUS considers that maintaining appropriate records is essential to facilitate supervision – including filing of complaints before the courts, and enable workers to benefit from weekly rest. In view of the enforcement deficit that the Government acknowledges in its report, the Committee requests the Government to consider appropriate measures to ensure the proper administration of legal provisions concerning weekly rest, especially by means of adequate inspection and effective sanctions. The Committee also requests the Government to transmit any comments it may wish to make in response to the latest comments of the CATUS.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Article 7(2) of the Convention. Payment of holiday pay in advance. Further to its previous comment, the Committee notes the Government’s renewed reference to section 114(1) of the Labour Code, which defines the method of calculation of the amount of holiday pay but does not specify whether an employee should receive such an amount in advance of the holiday, as required under Article 7(2) of the Convention. The Committee again requests the Government to indicate any measures taken or envisaged in order to give full effect to this requirement of the Convention.

Articles 11 and 12. Compensation for unused holiday upon termination of employment – Prohibition to relinquish or forgo the right to annual holiday with pay. The Committee recalls its previous comments in which it noted that the Labour Code does not contain any provisions expressly prohibiting the payment of monetary compensation in lieu of annual leave except in the case of termination of employment (Article 11) and also prohibiting any agreement to relinquish the right to the annual holiday with pay or to forgo such holiday for compensation or otherwise (Article 12). In its latest report, the Government indicates that it has established a working group to develop amendments to the Labour Code, which will include amendments to align provisions on annual paid holidays with these Articles of the Convention. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any progress made in the process of revision of the Labour Code and to transmit the text of any amended provisions once they have been adopted.

Moreover, the Committee notes the comments made by the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Serbia (CATUS) according to which over 700,000 workers do not benefit from annual leave, while the Labour Code provisions establishing the right for annual leave above the statutory minimum of 20 working days are not applied in practice in the private sector. The Committee requests the Government to submit any comments it may wish to make in response to the observations of the CATUS.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes that the new Labour Code, which entered into force on 23 March 2005, establishes a minimum annual holiday with pay of 20 working days.

Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Advance payment. The Committee notes the explanations provided by the Government according to which, under section 114 of the Labour Code, workers on annual holiday with pay must receive compensation equivalent to the average of their wages over the previous three months. In its report, the Government also indicates that, under section 110(1) of the Labour Code, wages must be paid no later than at the end of the current month for the previous month. The Committee recalls that, under Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the remuneration due in respect of annual holiday with pay must be paid to the worker in advance of his holiday, unless otherwise provided in an agreement applicable to him and the employer. It requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged with a view to bringing the legislation into conformity with this Article of the Convention.

Article 11. Right to holiday in the event of termination of the employment contract. In reply to the Committee’s previous comment, the Government refers to section 76 of the Labour Code which provides that workers who were prevented from enjoying their holiday because of their employer are entitled to compensation equivalent to the average of their wages over the previous three months. The Committee understands that this section does not refer specifically to the case of the termination of the contract of employment but may apply to any situation in which workers are prevented from taking their holiday. Furthermore, it notes that, under section 71 of the Labour Code, employers must provide workers with a certificate indicating the number of holiday days taken in the event of the termination of the employment contract. The Committee recalls that, under Article 11 of the Convention, any worker who has acquired entitlement to holiday and whose employment is terminated, is entitled to the paid holiday due and not taken, compensation in lieu thereof, or the equivalent holiday credit. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which effect is given to this Article of the Convention.

Article 12. Prohibition to relinquish or forgo the right to an annual holiday with pay. In its report, the Government indicates that an agreement concluded in advance between the worker and the employer for the purpose of compensating the injury suffered as a result of the relinquishment of the annual holiday with pay is considered null and void under sections 9(2), 11 and 68(4) of the Labour Code. However, it indicates that, under sections 75 and 76 of the Labour Code, employers who omit to communicate to workers the dates of their annual holiday with pay or who commit any other error which prevents workers from enjoying their annual holiday with pay must pay compensation to the worker for injury suffered of an amount equivalent to the average of the worker’s wages over the previous three months. Further to its previous comment, the Committee recalls that, under Article 12 of the Convention, any agreement, prior or otherwise, to relinquish the right to the annual holiday with pay or to forego such a holiday, for compensation or otherwise, must be regarded as null and void or prohibited. It requests the Government to take the necessary measures to guarantee the nullity or prohibition of any agreement for such purpose.

Furthermore, the Committee notes the comments made by the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Serbia (SSSS), dated 19 September 2008, according to which numerous enterprises in the private sector do not apply the rules relating to annual holiday with pay, unlike public institutions and organizations. The SSSS indicates that young workers in particular do not benefit from the minimum annual holiday with pay of 20 days provided for by the legislation and, due to the current employment market situation, they are in a weak position which prevents them from asserting their right to holiday to the employer. In this regard, it indicates that, in order to obtain the employer’s agreement and so as not to disrupt the activity of the enterprise, young workers agree upon reduced holiday periods with their colleagues. The employer may also determine general holiday on a discretionary basis when it considers it appropriate. According to the allegations of the SSSS, non-unionized workers in fact relinquish their right to holiday and employers refrain from making them take holiday. The Committee requests the Government to provide any comments which it would like to make in reply to the comments of the SSSS.

Part V of the report form. Practical application. The Committee notes the statistics provided by the Government concerning violations of the rules relating to annual holiday with pay reported by the inspection services. It requests the Government to continue providing general information on the application of the Convention in practice, in particular statistical data concerning the number of workers covered by the legislation giving effect to the Convention, extracts from reports of the inspection services indicating the number of violations of the rules relating to annual holiday with pay which have been reported and the sanctions imposed in this regard, etc.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Article 7 of the Convention. Special weekly rest schemes. The Committee notes that sections 57 and 59 of the Labour Law seem to provide for the possibility of setting up special weekly rest schemes, due to the nature of activity, the organization of the work or from the point of view of making better use of means of production or better management of working time, provided that the workers who are covered by these special schemes are granted the weekly rest to which they are entitled within a period which may not exceed 30 days. In this regard, it recalls that Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Convention, authorizes the introduction of special schemes only in well-defined circumstances for specified categories of persons or specified types of establishments. It requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged in order to determine the categories of persons or enterprises which may be subject to a special weekly rest scheme, while ensuring that the cases justifying recourse to special schemes are limited to the cases provided for by Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Article 8. Temporary exemptions. In reply to its previous comment on this point, the Government indicates that, in accordance with section 53 of the Labour Law, read in conjunction with section 67(4), weekly rest may only be suspended in the event of force majeure, sudden pressure of work or urgent unplanned work which has to be carried out within a certain period and which requires overtime work. It also indicates that the amendment of section 67(4), which establishes the conditions of weekly rest, is envisaged in order to reduce the risk of interpretation. The Committee recalls that Article 8, paragraph 1, of the Convention, only authorizes temporary exemptions to weekly rest in a limited number of cases which do not include “urgent unplanned work which has to be carried out within a certain period”. This Article requires that it be a case of urgent work to premises and equipment in so far as necessary to avoid serious interference with the ordinary working of the establishment. The Committee hopes that the Government will take these observations into account when revising section 67(4) of the Labour Law so as to ensure that temporary exemptions to weekly rest are only authorized under the well-defined conditions referred to in Article 8, paragraph 1, of the Convention. It requests the Government to provide a copy of the revised text once it has been adopted.

Article 9. Protection of wages. Further to its previous comment, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate how this Article of the Convention is given effect in both law and practice.

Furthermore, the Committee notes the comments made by the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Serbia, according to which the rules on weekly rest and the legislative provisions concerning the employer’s duty to inform its workers of the reallocation of hours of work are infringed, particularly in supermarkets and hypermarkets where a system of “voluntary work” on Saturdays and Sundays has been introduced, depriving workers of any weekly rest. It also notes that, according to the allegations made by the Confederation, the labour inspection services prove to be ineffective in enforcing the provisions on weekly rest. The Committee requests the Government to submit any comments that it would like to make concerning these allegations.

Part V of the report form. Practical application. The Committee notes the statistics provided by the Government concerning violations relating to weekly rest reported by the inspection services in the commercial sector. It requests the Government to continue providing general information on the application of the Convention in practice, particularly statistical data concerning the number of workers covered by the legislation giving effect to the Convention, extracts from reports of the inspection services indicating the number of violations of the rules relating to weekly rest which have been reported and the sanctions imposed in this regard, etc.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report concerning the application of the Convention in the Republic of Serbia, in particular, the adoption of the new Labour Law of the Republic of Serbia of 15 March 2005. It notes that the report does not contain information on the application of the Convention in the Republic of Montenegro. It therefore requests the Government to also provide full information on the application of the Convention in the Republic of Montenegro for examination by the Committee at its next session.

Article 6, paragraph 4, of the Convention. Further to its previous comment, the Committee asks the Government to specify how it is ensured that the traditions and customs of religious minorities are, as far as possible, respected.

Article 7, paragraph 3. While noting the Government’s indication that the postponement of the day of weekly rest as a result of the redistribution of working hours mainly occurs in sectors of economic activity such as civil engineering, industry and transport services, the Committee asks the Government to provide more detailed information on the manner in which section 57 of the Labour Law is applied in practice.

Article 8, paragraphs 1 and 2. The Committee notes that section 67, paragraph 4, of the Labour Law, permits temporary exemptions from the general weekly rest standard, if necessary. The Committee considers that this provision is broader in scope than the Convention which lays down specific conditions under which temporary exemptions may be granted, namely, accident, force majeure, urgent work to premises and equipment, abnormal pressure of work, and prevention of the loss of perishable goods. It therefore asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that temporary exceptions are only authorized in the cases provided for in this Article of the Convention, and only after consulting the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned.

Article 9. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide explanations as to how this Article of the Convention is given effect in both law and practice.

Part V of the report form. The Committee notes the statistical information provided by the Government regarding labour inspection results for 2004 as well as the total number of persons employed in commerce. The Committee would appreciate if the Government would continue supplying general information on the practical application of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes that the first report on the application of the Convention only provides information on the Republic of Serbia and does not contain information on the application of the Convention in the Republic of Montenegro. It therefore requests the Government to provide full information also on the application of the Convention in the Republic of Montenegro.

The Committee also notes the observations made by the World Confederation of Labour (WCL). The Government has not, as yet, commented on these observations.

The Committee requests the Government to provide additional information on the application of the Convention in Serbia on the following points.

Article 6, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention. Provision of weekly rest. Section 51 of the Labour Code states that workers are entitled to a weekly rest of at least 24 consecutive hours. The WCL observes that the Labour Code does not stipulate the weekly rest days or the normal weekly rest scheme. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the weekly rest is, wherever possible, granted simultaneously to all the persons concerned in each establishment (Article 6, paragraph 2); whether the weekly rest period coincides, wherever possible, with the weekly rest established as a day of rest by its traditions and customs (Article 6, paragraph 3); and how the traditions and customs of religious minorities are, as far as possible, respected (Article 6, paragraph 4).

Article 7, paragraph 1. Special weekly rest schemes. Section 44 of the Labour Code allows averaging of working time as long as the employee is provided with their daily and weekly rest set by law, within a period not longer than 30 consecutive days. The Committee recalls that special weekly rest schemes can be applied where the nature of the work, service performed by the establishment, the size of the population to be served, or the number of persons employed is such that the weekly rest cannot be applied. In such cases, measures can be taken by the competent authority to specified categories of persons or specified types of establishments covered by the Convention to apply the special weekly rest scheme. Regard must be paid to all proper social and economic consideration when approving such measures.

The Committee also brings to the Government’s attention the Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) Recommendation, 1957 (No. 103), in particular, Paragraph 3(a) which states that special weekly rest schemes provided for by Article 7 of the Convention should ensure that persons to whom such special schemes apply do not work for more than three weeks without receiving the rest periods to which they are entitled. The provision of weekly rest should be considered as an elementary guarantee to safeguard the health and welfare of workers and protect them against the risk of abuse. Therefore, exceptions must be limited to what is strictly necessary. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate how it ensures that the special weekly rest scheme can only be applied in those cases enumerated in Article 7(1), paragraph 1.

Article 7, paragraph 4. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether all special weekly rest schemes have been approved by the competent authority, and only after consultations with the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned.

Article 8. Temporary exemptions. Section 51 of the Labour Code states that if it is indispensable that the employee works on the day of the weekly rest, she/he shall be provided with a one-day recess in the course of the following week. The WCL observes that the general language used to permit the temporary exemption appears to be contrary to Article 8. The Committee recalls that Article 8, paragraph 1, lists the circumstances in which temporary exemptions can be approved by the competent authority. As the wording in section 51 allows exceptions to be granted without authorization by the competent authority and for all circumstances, it requests the Government to make the necessary changes to bring the provision in line with the Convention. It reminds the Government of the importance of the weekly rest in order to safeguard the workers’ health the safety. The Committee also recalls that temporary exemptions should be adopted after consultations with the employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned.

Article 8, paragraph 3. Compensatory rest. The WCL observes that section 51 of the Labour Code appears to provide only for a one-day recess in the course of the following week for work carried out on the day of the weekly rest. The Committee recalls that the Convention requires the worker to be granted compensatory rest of a total duration of not less than 24 consecutive hours.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2005.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes that the first report on the application of the Convention only provides information on the Republic of Serbia and does not contain information on the application of the Convention in the Republic of Montenegro. It therefore requests the Government to provide full information also on the application of the Convention in the Republic of Montenegro.

Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to provide additional information on the application of the Convention in Serbia on the following points.

Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Advance payment. Section 59 of Labour Code, 2001 states that, employees shall have the right to compensation of earnings that they would have gained during the time of their annual paid holiday. This provision does not specify that the amount due shall be paid to the worker in advance of the holiday, unless otherwise provided in an agreement applicable to the employee and the employer. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how it is ensured, that the compensation of the earnings that an employee would have gained in the month in which he is on annual leave, are paid in advance of the holiday, unless otherwise provided in an agreement applicable to him or her and the employer, as required by this provision of the Convention.

Article 11 and Article 12. Remuneration for holidays not taken. Section 60 of the Labour Code states that if the employee does not use his annual leave through the fault of the employer, the employee is entitled to an indemnity equalling the amount of the compensation of earnings that she/he would have received if he/she had used his/her annual leave. The Committee recalls that compensation is only allowed for outstanding holidays with pay upon termination of employment, as provided for in Article 11 of the Convention.

Furthermore, section 60 appears to contradict section 52(3) of the Labour Code. Section 52(3) in accordance with Article 12 of the Convention does not allow the right to minimum annual holiday with pay to be relinquished by agreements for compensation or otherwise, whereas section 60 appears to allow for compensation if annual leave cannot be taken due to the fault of the employer, in contradiction to section 52(3) and Article 12. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how, in practice and in addition to the provision of section 52, paragraph 3, of the Labour Code, it is ensured that section 60 of the Labour Code cannot be maliciously used to deprive an employee of his annual leave, as indicated in the comment made by the Association of Free and Independent Trade Unions.