CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 14 décembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sB479198 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2BF5EB6D { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8FE8E970 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sD37EA1D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:9pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCF7129D5 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s953FCA47 { margin-top:8pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s659CE682 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3013787D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s695099B3 { width:10.89pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sEAB539EC { width:7.83pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s554D0A64 { width:4.78pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB85C84E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sB6D33163 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s833B1EA7 { width:7.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s19606355 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:68.05pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sD46FFE5D { width:8.66pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4859184F { width:7pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD5295FC2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s72A8FB50 { width:5.34pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s57F719EC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:102.05pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s8E0B8B88 { width:8.12pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF53451E7 { width:5.9pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4DA599D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:119.05pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s31A6B95 { width:4.56pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC9B5F0A5 { width:4.59pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s2180C07C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:134.7pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; font-size:10pt } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s2CF6420B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:155.95pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-indent:-21.25pt; font-size:10pt } .s664C5C83 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:120.5pt; margin-bottom:5pt; font-size:10pt } .sBB31CFFC { width:3.67pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC15FC45D { width:3.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B1B7EFD { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.3pt } .sEFA4D591 { width:5.3pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sFFD62EF6 { width:229.91pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3FE491B1 { width:7.31pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3F1BF475 { width:225.25pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5C5EB14B { width:217.93pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s590A3EF4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt } .s275CCCF2 { width:5.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD5B51F57 { width:202.79pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s98FBE5B1 { width:3.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s109B0633 { width:1.33pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE019FBDB { width:0.67pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF9B3189B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAAC9C691 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s7DB8BC41 { width:183.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s2DF49AA6 { width:24.54pt; display:inline-block } .s477F3289 { width:141.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA8208715 { width:9.2pt; display:inline-block } .s7BF29C1E { width:139.76pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sECF8538A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6A544CA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-28.35pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20653FA { width:21.68pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s56A5E4ED { width:18.35pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sED0B6F15 { width:15.01pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6FEFB80D { font-family:Arial; color:#343541 } .s9B9C8843 { width:13.68pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s767420C5 { width:17.01pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s1EA1999E { width:10.34pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA13632B7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2526E45E { width:7.01pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sF8D072D8 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff } .sC2366945 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; background-color:#ffffff } .s391E78BA { font-family:Arial; background-color:#ffffff } .s3DB046A9 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; background-color:#ffffff } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF HUMPERT AND OTHERS v. GERMANY (Applications nos. 59433/18, 59477/18, 59481/18 and 59494/18)   JUDGMENT   Art 11 • Freedom of association • Proportionate disciplinary sanctions on teachers with civil-servant status for participating during their working hours in strikes organised by their trade union, in breach of the constitutional ban on civil servants striking • Non-exhaustive list of essential elements of trade-union freedom built up through Court’s case-law • Question of whether strike prohibition affected an essential element of trade-union freedom being context-specific and requiring an assessment of all case circumstances • Legitimate aims of ensuring the maintenance of a stable administration, the fulfilment of State functions and the proper functioning of the State and its institutions • Impugned disciplinary measures also served to ensure a functioning school system and thus safeguard the right of others to education protected by Art 2 P1 • General ban on strikes for all civil servants raised specific issues under the Convention • Negative assessments by monitoring bodies set up under the specialised international instruments and trend emerging from the practice of the Contracting States are relevant elements, but not decisive for Court’s assessment • Strike action, albeit important part of trade-union activity, not the only means for trade unions and their members to protect relevant occupational interests • Variety of different domestic institutional safeguards, in their totality, enabled civil servants’ trade unions and civil servants to effectively defend the relevant occupational interests • Prohibition on strikes a general measure reflecting the balancing and weighing-up of different, potentially competing, constitutional interests   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 14 December 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. Table of Contents PROCEDURE THE FACTS I.   THE DISCIPLINARY MEASURES AGAINST THE APPLICANTS II.   PROCEEDINGS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS III.   PROCEEDINGS IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT A.   The applicants’ constitutional complaints B.   The Federal Constitutional Court’s judgment 1.   Compliance with Article 9 § 3 of the Basic Law 2.   Compliance with Article 11 of the Convention RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE I.   THE DOMESTIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK A.   Provisions of the Basic Law B.   The case-law of the domestic courts 1.   Case-law on the prohibition to strike 2.   Case-law on the relevant principles of the career civil service 3.   Case-law on the duty of care C.   Statutory provisions relating to civil servants 1.   Provisions relating to the prohibition on strikes 2.   Provisions relating to the participation in the legislative procedure 3.   Rights of representation of civil servants II.   INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PRACTICE A.   Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties B.   The Permanent Court of International Justice C.   The right to strike and possible bans and restrictions 1.   Universal instruments and practice 2.   Council of Europe 3.   European Union 4.   Inter-American system D.   The right to education III.   COMPARATIVE LAW MATERIAL THE LAW I.   THE ROLE OF THE COURT II.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Admissibility B.   Merits 1.   The parties’ submissions (a)   The applicants (b)   The Government 2.   Submissions of the third-party interveners (a)   The Danish Government (b)   European Trade Union Confederation, German Trade Union Confederation, Trade Union for Education and Science (c)   Association of Civil Servants and Union for Collective Bargaining 3.   The Court’s assessment (a)   General principles (i)   The Court’s approach to trade-union freedom (ii)   The right to strike (b)   Application of those principles to the present case (i)   Whether there has been an interference (ii)   Whether the interference was justified (α)   “Prescribed by law” (β)   Legitimate aim (γ)   “Necessary in a democratic society” i.     The nature and extent of the restriction on the right to strike ii.     The measures taken to enable civil servants’ trade unions and civil servants themselves to defend occupational interests (α)     The right of civil servants to form and join trade unions (β)     Participatory rights granted to trade unions to protect the occupational interests of civil servants (γ)     Individual right of each civil servant to be provided with “adequate maintenance” (δ)     Rights of representation and of co-determination iii.     The objectives pursued by the prohibition on strikes iv.     Further rights encompassed by civil servant status v.     The possibility of working as a State school teacher under contractual State employee status with a right to strike vi.     The severity of the impugned disciplinary measures (iii)   Overall assessment III.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION IV.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION OPERATIVE PROVISIONS CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE RAVARANI DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SERGHIDES APPENDIX   In the case of Humpert and Others v. Germany, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Síofra O’Leary, President,   Georges Ravarani,   Marko Bošnjak,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Arnfinn Bårdsen,   Faris Vehabović,   Egidijus Kūris,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   Alena Poláčková,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Tim Eicke,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Raffaele Sabato,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Diana Sârcu,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Johan Callewaert, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 1 March and 11 October 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the latter date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in four applications (nos. 59433/18, 59477/18, 59481/18 and 59494/18) against the Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by four German nationals, Ms Karin Humpert, Ms Kerstin Wienrank, Mr Eberhard Grabs and Ms Monika Dahl (“the applicants”), on 10 December 2018. 2.     The applicants were represented by Mr R. Buschmann, a lawyer practising in Kassel. The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by two of their Agents, Ms S. Jacoby and Ms N. Wenzel, of the Federal Ministry of Justice. 3.     The applicants, teachers with civil servant status ( Beamte ), complained, in particular, about the disciplinary measures against them for having participated, during their working hours, in strikes which had been organised by the trade union of which they were members. The measures were based on the prohibition of strikes by civil servants. The applicants considered the disciplinary measures, together with the fact that they were prohibited from participating in strikes owing to their status as civil servants, to be in breach of, in particular, their right to freedom of association as provided for in Article   11 of the Convention. 4.     The applications were allocated to the Fifth Section of the Court (Rule   52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). On 10 September 2019 notice of the applications was given to the Government. 5.     The Vice-President of the Fifth Section granted leave to make written submissions as third parties (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule   44   §   3) to the Government of Denmark, the Association of Civil Servants and Union for Collective Bargaining ( dbb Beamtenbund und Tarifunion ), the German Trade Union Confederation ( Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund ), the Trade Union for Education and Science ( Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft ) and the European Trade Union Confederation. 6.     On 6 September 2022 a Chamber of the Third Section, to which the applications had since been allocated, decided to join the applications (Rule   42 § 1) and to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber (Article 30 of the Convention). 7.     A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 1 March 2023. There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the Government Ms   S. Jacoby, Ms   N. Wenzel,   Agents , Mr   C. Walter,   Counsel , Mr   M. Sonntag Ms   U. Bender, Mr   T. Schröder, Mr   A. Buchwald, Ms   U. Häfner, Ms   M. Zapfe, Mr   R. Bellin, Mr   M. Stotz, Mr   P. Tamme ,   Advisers ; (b)     for the applicants Mr   R. Buschmann ,   Counsel , Mr   K. Jessolat, Ms   U. Roth,   Advisers , Ms   K. Wienrank, Mr   E. Grabs, Ms   M. Dahl ,   Applicants .   The Court heard addresses by Mr Walter and Mr Buschmann, as well as their replies to questions put by judges. THE FACTS THE DISCIPLINARY MEASURES AGAINST THE APPLICANTS 8 .     At the relevant time, the four applicants were State school teachers with civil servant status employed by different German Länder . They were members of the Trade Union for Education and Science. They all participated in strikes, which included a demonstration, organised by that union during their working hours in order to protest against worsening working conditions for teachers. They were subsequently reprimanded or fined in disciplinary proceedings for having breached their duties as civil servants by participating in the strikes during their working hours. 9 .     In the case of Ms Humpert (the first applicant), a primary school teacher, the Schleswig-Holstein Ministry for Education and Culture, relying on Article 33 of the Basic Law (see paragraph 39 below) and sections 34 and 47 of the Civil Servants’ Status Act ( Beamtenstatusgesetz , see paragraph 48 below), issued a disciplinary decision against her on 5 July 2011. It reprimanded her for having participated in a strike on 3 June 2010 to protest, in particular, against the deterioration of working conditions for teachers and the prolongation of working hours, and for not having taught one lesson as a result. In the subsequent proceedings it was found that the first applicant had in fact failed to teach two classes. 10 .     In the cases of Ms Wienrank (the second applicant), a vocational school teacher, and of Mr Grabs (the third applicant), a secondary school teacher, the Lower Saxony School Authority issued a disciplinary decision against them on 10 and 11 January 2011 respectively. Relying on Article   33   §   5 of the Basic Law and sections 34 and 47 of the Civil Servants’ Status Act read in conjunction with section 67 § 1 of the Lower Saxony Civil Servants Act (see paragraph 48 below), it imposed an administrative fine of 100 euros (EUR) on each of the applicants for unauthorised absence from work. It noted that the applicants had participated in a strike on 25 February 2009 and thus had not given their lessons (some five each) on that day. The aims of the strike included the securing of a collective agreement, notably providing for higher remuneration, for private-law employees ( Angestellte im öffentlichen Dienst , hereinafter “contractual State employees”) in the public educational sector and the transposition of the results of that agreement into the legislation covering civil servants in that sector. 11 .     In the case of Ms Dahl (the fourth applicant), a secondary school teacher, the Cologne District Government issued a disciplinary decision against her on 10 May 2010. Relying on Article 33 § 5 of the Basic Law and section 83 § 1, first sentence, read in conjunction with section 79 § 1, first sentence, of the North Rhine-Westphalia Civil Servants’ Status Act (see   paragraph   48 below), it imposed an administrative fine of EUR 1,500 for her unauthorised absence as a civil servant during 12 lessons owing to her participation in strikes on 28 January and 5 and 10 February 2009. The aim of the strikes was the same as that in the cases of the second and third applicants. PROCEEDINGS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS 12.     The applicants’ actions in the administrative courts to have the disciplinary decisions set aside were ultimately to no avail. 13 .     All the administrative courts found that the applicants had breached their professional duties by participating in strikes. The traditional principles of the career civil service ( hergebrachte Grundsätze des Berufsbeamtentums ) under Article 33 § 5 of the Basic Law restricted civil servants’ freedom of association under Article 9 § 3 of the Basic Law (see paragraph 38 below) by laying down a prohibition on strike action. 14 .     At first instance, the Schleswig-Holstein, Stade and Osnabrück Administrative Courts – in judgments of 8 August 2012 (first applicant), 6   December 2012 (second applicant) and 19 August 2011 (third applicant) – upheld the respective disciplinary decisions against the first, second and third applicants. Having regard to the judgments of this Court in Demir and Baykara v. Turkey ([GC], no. 34503/97, ECHR 2008) and in Enerji Yapı-Yol Sen v. Turkey (no. 68959/01, 21 April 2009), they considered that, even assuming that the prohibition on strikes by civil servants did not comply with Article 11 of the Convention, that prohibition was part of the essence of the constitutional principles enshrined in Article 33 §§ 4 and 5 of the Basic Law, which could not be altered by an interpretation of the Basic Law in line with provisions of public international law such as Article 11 of the Convention. By contrast, the Düsseldorf Administrative Court, in a judgment of 15   December 2010 (fourth applicant), considered that the employing State entity had to avoid a breach of Article 11 of the Convention by discontinuing the disciplinary proceedings. 15 .     On appeal, the Lower Saxony Administrative Court of Appeal, in a judgment of 12 June 2012 in the third applicant’s case, found that the prohibition on strikes by civil servants was part of the essence of the constitutional principles enshrined in Article 33 §§ 4 and 5 of the Basic Law which could not be altered by an interpretation of the Basic Law in line with provisions of public international law such as Article 11 of the Convention. No appeal on points of law lay against that judgment. 16.     By order of 16 May 2013 the Lower Saxony Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the second applicant’s request for leave to appeal against the Administrative Court’s judgment in her case, finding that it had comprehensively addressed the relevant questions in its judgment of 12 June 2012 in the third applicant’s case. 17 .     In the fourth applicant’s case, on an appeal by the competent authority, the North-Rhine Westphalia Court of Appeal, in a judgment of 7 March 2012, overturned the Administrative Court’s judgment. In a judgment of 27   February 2014, the Federal Administrative Court, on the fourth applicant’s appeal on points of law, found that the disciplinary decision against the fourth applicant, which had ceased to be valid as she had since left the civil service at her own request, had as such been lawful. The administrative fine imposed on her, in order for the amount to be appropriate, should have been fixed at EUR 300. Referring to the judgment of this Court in Enerji Yapı-Yol Sen (cited above, § 32), the Federal Administrative Court considered that, in view of her tasks in the public service, the fourth applicant had had a right to participate in strikes under Article 11 of the Convention. However, Article   33   § 5 of the Basic Law could not be interpreted in a Convention ‑ compliant manner as the prohibition on strikes by civil servants concerned the essence of the status of civil servants. The legislature was therefore called upon to resolve this conflict between the Basic Law and the Convention, with the prohibition on strikes by civil servants under Article   33   § 5 of the Basic Law remaining valid in the meantime. 18.     The Schleswig-Holstein Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the first applicant’s appeal by a judgment of 29 September 2014. By an order of 26 February 2015 the Federal Administrative Court rejected the first applicant’s request for leave to appeal on points of law by reference to its judgment of 27 February 2014 in the fourth applicant’s case. PROCEEDINGS IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT The applicants’ constitutional complaints 19 .     On different dates the applicants, who were all legally represented, lodged separate constitutional complaints with the Federal Constitutional Court against the disciplinary decisions issued against them, as confirmed by the administrative courts. They submitted that the decisions, which resulted from a prohibition on strikes by teachers with civil servant status, had breached their right to form associations to safeguard and improve working and economic conditions under Article 9 § 3 of the Basic Law. They further argued that the administrative courts had failed to interpret national law in line with public international law as the prohibition on strikes by teachers with civil servant status, who did not hold duties involving the exercise of core elements of public authority, violated, in particular, Article 11 of the Convention. The Federal Constitutional Court’s judgment 20.     On 12 June 2018 the Federal Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ constitutional complaints (file nos. 2 BvR 1738/12 and others). Compliance with Article 9 § 3 of the Basic Law 21.     The Federal Constitutional Court found that the disciplinary decisions against the applicants, which were all issued on the understanding that there was a prohibition on strikes by civil servants, had not violated the applicants’ right to form associations to safeguard and improve working and economic conditions under Article 9 § 3 of the Basic Law. 22.     The court found that Article 9 § 3 of the Basic Law applied to every person and thus also to civil servants. It covered collective measures, including strikes, organised by trade unions in the context of the negotiation of collective agreements. Such measures fell within the scope of Article 9 §   3 even though civil servants themselves could not be covered by, and their trade unions could not conclude, collective agreements for them, as their rights (including their salary) and duties were regulated by law. The applicants’ participation in strikes called by their trade union in connection with collective bargaining for contractual State employees was thus covered by Article 9 § 3 of the Basic Law. The disciplinary decisions issued against the applicants, as confirmed by the administrative courts, had therefore interfered with the right to form associations and to safeguard and improve working and economic conditions as they limited the possibility of participating in labour disputes. 23 .     However, that interference had been justified. The right to freedom of association was limited by other constitutional interests, in particular by the traditional principles of the career civil service under Article 33 § 5 of the Basic Law. The prohibition on strikes by all civil servants, owing to their status, which was well-established in its case-law (see also paragraph 40 below), was one of these traditional principles. It served the purpose of maintaining a stable administration, of ensuring the fulfilment of State functions and thereby the functioning of the State and its institutions. 24 .     The court reiterated that Article 33 § 5 of the Basic Law guaranteed the existence of the career civil service. As an institution, the career civil service was intended to ensure a stable administration that functioned as an equalising factor vis-à-vis the political forces shaping the State. The traditional principles of the career civil service covered the core structural principles developed over a long period of time, notably under the Weimar Constitution (of 1919). These core principles, which also comprised the civil servants’ duty of loyalty, the principle of lifetime employment, the principle of “adequate maintenance” ( Alimentationsprinzip , i.e. that civil servants must be paid appropriate remuneration, hereinafter the “principle of alimentation”) and the corresponding principle that the salary of civil servants must be determined by law, did not exist independently but were interrelated. 25 .     The court further reiterated that civil servants’ duty of loyalty and the “principle of alimentation” were incompatible with the right to strike. The purpose of providing a legally and financially safe post was to ensure that civil servants complied with their duty of loyalty. Accordingly, the principle of lifetime employment served to guarantee the civil servants’ independence notably from political bodies so that they could guarantee a stable administration in accordance with the rule of law. The “principle of alimentation” obliged the employer to provide civil servants and their families with “adequate maintenance” throughout their lifetime in keeping with the development of the general economic and financial circumstances and the general standard of living. The level of this maintenance had to correspond to the civil servant’s grade, responsibilities, and to the relevance of the career civil service for the general public. The guarantee of an appropriate remuneration under Article 33 § 5 of the Basic Law established an individual right which each civil servant held vis-à-vis the State. 26 .     Given that the prohibition on strikes was part of the institutional guarantee enshrined in Article 33 § 5 of the Basic Law, the legislature was bound by it and could not amend it. A right to strike, even if it were for only some of the civil servants, would fundamentally question the entire set-up of Germany’s system of the career civil service and would, at the very least, require fundamental changes to the “principle of alimentation”, the duty of loyalty, the principle of lifetime employment, and the principle that material rights and duties, including remuneration, had to be regulated by the legislature. It would thus constitute an interference with the core of the structural principles guaranteed under Article 33 § 5 of the Basic Law. If civil servants’ remuneration or parts of it could be negotiated by means of labour disputes, the current possibility of bringing an action for the provision of “adequate maintenance” in the courts, based on the “principle of alimentation” under Article 33 § 5 of the Basic Law, could no longer be justified. In the reciprocal system of interrelated rights and duties, expansions of one right or duty resulted in changes to the other rights and duties. Civil servant status did not permit “cherry-picking”. 27.     According to the court, it was furthermore not possible to limit the prohibition on strikes to those civil servants who were exercising public authority. Dividing civil servants into groups that did or did not have the right to strike based on their different functions would entail difficulties of distinction that were connected to the concept of public authority. It was very difficult to assess whether a given act involved the exercise of public authority and to determine whether a particular civil servant who performed different functions was to be accorded the right to strike. Extending the right to strike to civil servants not exercising public authority would further create a special category of civil servants, which would add a “third pillar” to the differentiated two-track system of public service. This would raise questions as to their distinction from and their equal treatment with contractual State employees and the extent to which this category of personnel could still be regarded as having the legal status of civil servant. 28.     The court further considered that granting a limited right to strike that was subject to requirements, for example an obligation to notify or obtain an approval for a planned strike, was not possible. Such a restricted right to strike would reduce the negative effects of the strike on the fundamental rights of third persons, e.g. parents and students, and would allow the administrative bodies to at least partly ensure that their duties were fulfilled. However, this would only be possible – this being an important objection because of the uncertainty – if a sufficient number of civil servants decided not to participate in the strike or could be excluded from participating in the strike by imposing a prohibition in individual cases. Moreover, in the case of longer-lasting labour disputes and the participation of persons holding senior positions in schools, the State’s mission to provide education and to guarantee a functioning school system (see Article 7 § 1 of the Basic Law, at paragraph   37 below) could not be continuously ensured. The fact that there had been no severe disturbances in schools’ operations in the past in those Länder in which the majority of teachers were contractual State employees did not call into question the potential negative impact of labour disputes in the educational sector. 29 .     The interference with the right of civil servants to freedom of association was not unreasonable. The right to strike constituted only one aspect of the right to freedom of association. The prohibition on strikes did not result in the complete irrelevance of freedom of association and did not render it entirely ineffective. Moreover, the legislature had sufficiently compensated for the prohibition on strikes by giving umbrella organisations ( Spitzenorganisationen ) of civil servants’ trade unions a right to participate in the drafting of new legal provisions on the status of civil servants (see section 53 of the Civil Servants’ Status Act, at paragraph 49 below). It was not possible to significantly strengthen this participatory right, as it would notably result in a conflict with the principle of democracy if trade unions, as representatives of specific interests, were accorded the right to co-determine working conditions and remuneration of civil servants to be set by the legislature. Another measure to compensate for the prohibition on strikes was the aforementioned possibility for civil servants to sue for “adequate maintenance” in the courts, in accordance with the “principle of alimentation”. Compliance with Article 11 of the Convention 30.     In the Federal Constitutional Court’s view, the prohibition on strikes by civil servants under German law was also compatible with Article 11 of the Convention and with this Court’s case-law regarding the right to strike. 31 .     The prohibition on strikes by civil servants was prescribed by law, namely by Article 33 § 5 of the Basic Law as interpreted by the Federal Constitutional Court in its well-established case-law and by the statutory provisions on the duties of civil servants, including sanctions for unauthorised absence from work, which presupposed a prohibition on strikes. It aimed at ensuring a functioning public administration, in the applicants’ case ensuring the fulfilment of the State’s mission to provide education and to guarantee a functioning school system, and thus served the aim of preventing disorder. 32 .     Recapitulating this Court’s case-law on trade-union freedom and noting that this Court had taken other international instruments and their interpretation by the competent bodies into account when interpreting Article   11 of the Convention, the Federal Constitutional Court observed that the right to strike had so far not been found to constitute an essential element of the right to form and join trade unions under Article 11 (with reference to National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers v. the United Kingdom , no. 31045/10, § 84, ECHR 2014). Rather, this Court had made the following differentiation with regard to the margin of appreciation concerning restrictions on the freedom of trade unions: if a legislative restriction struck at the core of trade-union activity, the national legislature had a lesser margin of appreciation and a greater justification was required for the resulting interference, in the general interest, with the exercise of trade-union freedom. Conversely, if it were not the core but a secondary or accessory aspect of trade-union freedom that was affected, the margin of appreciation was wider and the interference was more likely to be proportionate (with reference to ibid., § 87). The Court had held that secondary strike action did not affect the core of the right to freedom of association, but merely constituted a secondary or accessory aspect and therefore a wider margin of appreciation concerning restrictions was to be afforded to the national authorities (with reference to ibid., § 88). 33 .     Against this background, a prohibition on strikes imposed on civil servants, and specifically on teachers with that status, was justified under Article 11 § 2, first sentence, of the Convention. The Trade Union for Education and Science, which had organised the strike in which the applicants participated, represented both teachers with civil servant status and teachers with contractual State employee status. It negotiated collective agreements with the employers’ associations of the Länder for teachers with contractual State employee status only. These collective agreements did not apply to civil servants, in respect of whom the legislature, which had exclusive competence for determining the working conditions, decided whether and to what extent the outcomes of the collective bargaining for contractual State employees could be transferred to them. In part, the applicants sought to bring about such a transfer of collective bargaining outcomes by means of their participation in the strike. This behaviour was – at least partially – intended to support strike action aimed at the conclusion of a collective agreement and showed a certain similarity to a secondary strike and was thus not a core aspect of the guarantees of Article 11 of the Convention. The margin of appreciation granted to the State was therefore wide. 34 .     The prohibition on strikes was not a manifestation of civil servants’ privileged status (permanent employment, specific health insurance benefits, pensions) and was justified not merely by reference to their function which was to maintain the administration and the protection of the rights of third parties. Rather, as explained above, civil servant status entailed interrelated rights and duties and the German civil career service, which was a particular national tradition, would be called into question if a right to strike were granted to civil servants. Moreover, the prohibition on strikes by the applicant teachers served to safeguard the right to education and thus served to protect the human right enshrined in Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Furthermore, measures to compensate for the prohibition on strikes had been established under German law, notably the aforementioned participation of umbrella organisations of trade unions in the drafting of statutory provisions concerning the civil service, which enabled trade unions to make their voice heard, and the possibility for civil servants to have the constitutionality of their level of remuneration reviewed in the courts. 35 .     The Federal Constitutional Court further took the view that the applicants as teachers with civil servant status were “members of the administration of the State” for the purposes of Article 11 § 2, second sentence, of the Convention on whom restrictions could be imposed, a question which this Court had so far left open (with reference to, inter alia , Vogt v. Germany , 26 September 1995, § 68, Series A no. 323). The group of persons to be considered “members of the administration of the State” had to be construed strictly, with one possible aspect that could be assigned to this concept being the exercise of public authority on behalf of the State, and it would be excessive to consider all public service employees as “members of the administration of the State” (with reference to Enerji Yapı-Yol Sen , cited above, § 32). However, under the two-track German public service system, civil servants made up the smaller part of personnel in comparison to public service employees. The court conceded that teachers usually did not exercise sovereign authority on a regular basis and could therefore, in accordance with Article 33 § 4 of the Basic Law (see paragraph 39 below), also be employed by the State on a private-law basis, which was practised to a varying degree in the different Länder . The employment of teachers without civil servant status was not based on their function or the duties they performed, but generally on specific factual reasons. Some of the teachers so employed did not fulfil the personal requirements necessary to become civil servants; in other cases, the decision was based on practical administrative considerations, as it led to more flexible types of employment. That being said, the school system and the State’s educational mandate were of great importance and the State had a special interest in the discharge of duties by teachers at State schools. In view of the very important duties exercised by teachers, the decision to grant teachers civil servant status – which meant that they were in a relationship of service and loyalty – had to be reserved to the State. 36.     As there was no conflict between the Constitution and the Convention for the reasons set out above, the Federal Constitutional Court found that questions as to the limits of the Constitution’s openness to international law were not decisive for the adjudication of the case before it. In this connection, it reiterated its well-established case-law that the text of the Convention and the case-law of this Court served, at the level of constitutional law, as guidelines for the interpretation of the content and scope of fundamental rights and constitutional principles of the rule of law. When using the Convention as a guideline for interpretation, the Federal Constitutional Court also took into account judgments and decisions of this Court which did not concern the same issue. This was due to the function of direction and guidance ( Orientierungs- und Leitfunktion ) of the case-law of this Court for the interpretation of the Convention, which went beyond the judgment or decision in a specific case. Beyond the scope of Article 46 of the Convention, particular importance had to be attached to the specific circumstances of the case decided by this Court and its background to provide for contextualisation. It had to be taken into account that inter partes statements in a specific case by this Court were made against the background of the legal system of the respondent State concerned. The direction and guidance function was particularly strong with regard to parallel cases within the same legal order, that is to say, proceedings in the Contracting State in respect of which this Court had rendered its judgment. Beyond this impact on parallel cases, the direction and guidance function had to be taken into account by adopting the principal values formulated by this Court in terms of abstract, general guidelines. The possibilities of the above Convention-friendly interpretation of the Basic Law ended where this no longer appeared tenable according to the recognised methods of statutory and constitutional interpretation. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE THE DOMESTIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK Provisions of the Basic Law 37 .     Article 7 of the Basic Law, on the school system, in so far as relevant, provides: “(1)     The entire school system shall be under the supervision of the State.” 38 .     Article 9 of the Basic Law, on freedom of association, in so far as relevant, provides: “(3)     The right to form associations to safeguard and improve working and economic conditions shall be guaranteed to every individual and to every profession. Agreements which restrict or seek to impair this right shall be null and void; measures directed to this end shall be unlawful. ...” 39 .     Article 33 of the Basic Law, on, inter alia