Article 11-1
Freedom of association
Strong ministerial criticism of calls by police union for Government’s resignation: no violation
Facts – The first applicant was a trade union representing police officers. The second, third and fourth applicants were respectively its former president and vice-president and one of its members. In October 2005 the union organised a public meeting in one of the main squares in Bratislava to protest against proposed legislative changes to the police’s social-security regime. During the meeting the participants spontaneously called for the Government to step down and a banner on display read ‘If the State doesn’t pay a policeman, the mafia will do so with pleasure.’ Subsequently the Minister of the Interior criticised the meeting and its organisers and removed the second applicant from the post of director in the police force. The third applicant was also removed from his position at the Minister’s behest. The Minister stated in the press and on television that he would dismiss anyone who acted contrary to the ethical code of the police again, that the union representatives had lost credibility and that he was not obliged to negotiate with them. The applicants lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court alleging that the Minister’s statements would deter members of the police force from availing themselves of their freedoms of expression, assembly and association for fear of sanctions. In 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed their complaint after finding that the Minister’s statements were part of the dialogue between both parties and did not amount to a breach of the freedoms at issue.
Law – Article 11 read in the light of Article 10: The Court accepted that the applicants had been intimidated by the Minister’s statements, which could thus have had a chilling effect and discouraged them from pursuing activities within the trade union, including organising or taking part in similar meetings. There had consequently been interference with the exercise of their right to freedom of association. What the Court had to establish was whether such interference had been ‘necessary in a democratic society’. Under domestic law, when expressing their views in public, police officers were required to act in an impartial and reserved manner in order to maintain public trust. Given their primordial role in ensuring internal order and security and in fighting crime, duties and responsibilities inherent in the position and role of police officers justified particular arrangements as regards the exercise of their trade-union rights. The Court observed that the Minister’s impugned statements had been given in reaction to, and were exclusively directed against, the calls for the Government’s resignation and a slogan implying that there was a risk that the police might get involved with the mafia. The Minister had considered their conduct to be in breach of the obligation of police officers to express their views in an impartial and reserved manner and his statements had represented an immediate reaction to ideas and views expressed at the meeting. Given his responsibility for the appropriate functioning of the entire Ministry, including the police, the Minister had been entitled to express his opinion on the situation. Moreover, it did not appear that the applicants’ right to be heard or to continue pursuing trade-union activities had been impaired in any way. In sum, the Court accepted that the interference at issue corresponded to a ‘pressing social need’ and that the reasons for the interference were ‘relevant and sufficient’.
Conclusion: no violation (five votes to two).
Citations:
11828/08 – HEJUD, [2012] ECHR 1747, 11828/08 – CLIN, [2012] ECHR 2036
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Employment, Police, Human Rights
Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.467006