The Union (of Civil Servants) complained of a ban on them taking part in industrial action on a national day of protest, saying that it interfered with their rights of free association.
Held: The Court acknowledged that the right to strike was not absolute and could be subject to certain conditions and restrictions. However, while certain categories of civil servants could be prohibited from taking strike action, the ban did not extend to all public servants or to employees of State-run commercial or industrial concerns. In this particular case the circular had been drafted in general terms, completely depriving all public servants of the right to take strike action.
There was no evidence that the national action day had been prohibited. In joining in the action the members of the applicant trade union had simply been making use of their freedom of peaceful assembly. In the Court’s view the disciplinary action taken against them on the strength of the circular was capable of discouraging trade-union members and others from exercising their legitimate right to take part in such one-day strikes or other actions aimed at defending their members’ interests. Furthermore, the Turkish Government had failed to justify the need for the impugned restriction in a democratic society.
The Court found that the adoption and application of the circular did not answer a ‘pressing social need’ and that there had been disproportionate interference with the applicant union’s rights. There had therefore been a violation of Article 11.
‘The terms of the Convention require that the law should allow trade unions, in any manner not contrary to article 11, to act in defence of their members’ interests . . Strike action, which enables a trade union to make its voice heard, constitutes an important aspect in the protection of trade union members’ interests . . The Court also observed that the right to strike is recognised by the International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) supervisory bodies as an indissociable corollary of the right of trade union association that is protected by ILO Convention C87 on trade union freedom and the protection of trade union rights (for the Court’s consideration of elements of international law other than the Convention, see Demir and Baykara). It recalled that the European Social Charter also recognised the right to strike as a means of ensuring the effective exercise of the right to collective bargaining. As such the Court rejected the Government’s preliminary objection.’
The Court acknowledged that the right to strike was not absolute and could be subject to certain conditions and restrictions. Having examined the relevant considerations, it concluded: ‘that these sanctions were such as to discourage trade union members and other persons from acting upon a legitimate wish to take part in such a day of strike action or other forms of action aimed at defending their affiliates’ interests.’
Citations:
68959/01
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 11
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
See Also – Enerji Yapi-yol sen v Turquie (TURKEY) (French Text) ECHR 6-Nov-2009
The claimant union said that the respondent state had infringed its rights of free association by restricting their right to strike.
Held: The Union had standing to make the complaint. That the right to strike is not absolute. It may be . .
Cited – Metrobus Ltd v Unite the Union CA 31-Jul-2009
The union sought leave to appeal against an interim injunction restraining it from calling a strike. It now called in aid also its members’ Article 11 Human Rights. The company had questioned whether the ballot met the requirements of the 1992 Act. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Employment
Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.416095
