CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 octobre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Communicated on 21 October 2020 Published on 9 November 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 52977/19 Anu Marjaana HELLGREN against Finland lodged on 2 October 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s right to strike. The applicant worked as an employee in the Finnish Post which is a private-law company. The collective agreement applicable to her profession had come to an end on 31 October 2015 and the applicant’s trade union was planning to start a legal strike in order to put pressure on negotiations on a new collective agreement. The employer was envisaging to use externally hired temporary employees in case the strike started. On 2 November 2015 the applicant’s trade union had made a collective decision, as a preparation to the up-coming strike, that all its members would refuse to work overtime and to stop training new employees. When the applicant had come to work on 10   and 11 November 2015, her employer asked her to train an externally hired temporary employee. She refused to do so but told the employer that she was willing to continue with her normal work. The employer did not accept but sent her home and withdrew her salary. On 11 August 2016 the District Court accepted the applicant’s action, finding that the employer had not had the right to refuse the applicant’s work and to withdraw her salary. On 17 November 2017 the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court judgment. On 12 April 2019 the Supreme Court quashed by votes 3 to 2 the previous judgments and found for the employer. The applicant complains under Article 11 that her right to association and to trade union rights have been violated as the interference was not prescribed by law, did not pursue a legitimate aim or was not necessary in a democratic society. She complains under Article 14 that she has been discriminated against on the basis of her membership in a trade union. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of association, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   11§ 2?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of her Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention ? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim and did it have a reasonable justification?