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 subject to conditions and restrictions. Thus, the principle of freedom of association can be compatible with the prohibition of the right to strike of public servants exercising authority in the name of the state. However, the prohibition of the right to strike must be of limited categories of officials, it can not extend to employees generally, as here, or public employees of commercial or industrial state. Thus, the legal restrictions on the right to strike should define as clearly and narrowly as possible the categories of officials concerned. In this case the limitation was as to one day only, but still the respondent had not demonstrated that this was necessary. It did not meet a pressing social need and was disproportionate.
Citations:
68959/01, [2009] ECHR 2251
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 11 14
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Citing:
See Also – Enerji Yapi-yol sen v Turkey ECHR 21-Apr-2009
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Employment
Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.416064