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

Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) - Latvia (Ratification: 1992)

Article 1(2) of the Convention. Discrimination on the basis of national extraction. Inherent requirements of the job. The Committee has been referring for a number of years to certain provisions of the Law on State Language of 1999 concerning language requirements that may have a discriminatory impact on minority groups in employment and occupation (in particular on Russian-speaking minorities). In this respect, the Committee noted that the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) had indicated that the occupations in the private sector which “affect the lawful interests of the public” for which official language shall be used in accordance with section 6(2) of the Law on State Language, concerned over 1,000 professions (CRI(2012)3, 21 February 2012, paragraph 62). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the level of the language proficiency is defined by Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 733 Regarding the Amount of the Knowledge of the Official Language, 2009. The Government further indicates that the requirements of language proficiency have been discussed with experts from the High Commissioner on National Minorities of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and recognized as being adequate and that the knowledge of Latvian is limited to the professions involving lawful public interest. The Government provides information on the language courses and activities carried out from 2009 to 2013 which have mainly benefited the Russian minority. The Committee notes, however, that the United Nations Human Rights Committee, in its concluding observations, expressed concern regarding the discriminatory effects of the language proficiency requirement on the employment of minority groups (CCPR/C/LVA/CO/3, 11 April 2014, paragraph 7). Recalling that the concept of inherent requirements must be interpreted restrictively so as to avoid undue limitation of the protection provided by the Convention, the Committee again requests the Government to indicate how it ensures that language requirements do not, in practice, deprive ethnic minority groups of equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation. In this context, the Committee once again requests the Government to review and revise the list of occupations for which the use of the official language is required under section 6(2) of the Law on State Language so as to limit it to cases where language is an inherent requirement of the job. Please provide information on any measures taken in this respect.

Articles 1(2) and 4. Discrimination on the basis of political opinion. Inherent requirements of the job. Activities prejudicial to the security of the State. The Committee has been referring to the mandatory requirement set out in the State Civil Service Act, 2000, which provides that to qualify as a candidate for any civil service position the person concerned “is not or has not been in a permanent staff position, in the state security service, intelligence or counterintelligence service of the USSR, the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) or some foreign State” (section 7(8)), or the persons concerned “are not or have not been members of organizations banned by laws or court rulings” (section 7(9)). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the restrictions are intended to ensure a loyal and politically neutral civil service, which in turn will ensure stable and politically neutral state administration, and that there is no intention to repeal this restriction. The Government indicates that in 2013, 18 persons were dismissed from civil service positions due to the mandatory requirements for civil servants. While understanding the Government’s concerns regarding the requirement for all government unit members to be loyal to the State, the Committee would like to recall that for measures not to be deemed discriminatory under Article 4 of the Convention, they must firstly affect an individual on account of activities he or she is justifiably suspected or proven to have undertaken. These measures become discriminatory when simply based on membership of a particular group or community. In addition they must refer to activities that can be considered as prejudicial to the security of the State and the individual concerned shall have the right to appeal to a competent body in accordance with national practice (see General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraphs 832–835). The Committee recalls that this exception should be interpreted strictly. Recalling that political opinion may be taken into account as an inherent requirement, under Article 1(2) of the Convention, only for certain posts involving special responsibilities directly concerned with developing government policy, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to clearly specify and define the functions in respect of which section 7(8) and 7(9) of the State Civil Service Act, 2000, would apply. Bearing in mind the conditions in which Article 4 of the Convention can be invoked, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the application of section 7(8) and 7(9) in practice, including any available data on the number of persons dismissed or whose application has been rejected pursuant to these sections, indicating the reasons for this decision, and the functions concerned, as well as information on the appeal procedure available to the affected persons and any appeals lodged.

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