CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 octobre 2021

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB24F5E38 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9C156EF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sEA75BD01 { width:106.24%; border-collapse:collapse } .sED5DCFDE { width:7.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s8A069737 { width:28.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB6704312 { width:24.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2D1168BD { width:16.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE2646EAB { width:22.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE7D92C81 { width:7.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sCDD55F3 { margin-left:14.17pt; padding-left:3.68pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s240FF32E { width:28.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA64F712B { width:24.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s50398B03 { width:16.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7C06F38F { width:22.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE58FF9D5 { margin-left:15.01pt; padding-left:2.84pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } Published on 25 October 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 59129/10 RPD OAO AMTP and Others against Russia lodged on 22 September 2010 communicated on 8 October 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant trade union was prevented from communicating with an employer on behalf of its members on the matters of dismissals and collective agreement negotiations due to being considered as a “non ‑ primary” trade union. The relevant labour legislation reserves the above-mentioned rights only to “primary” trade unions. A “primary” trade union is defined as a “voluntary association of employees of, as a rule, of one [employer]”. The “primary” status of a trade union does not, therefore, depend on the number of its members (that is, there is no representativeness criterion). Although the applicant trade union had among its members a number of employees of one employer, it was still considered not as a “primary” trade union. Consequently, the applicant trade union could not represent the interests of its members on the matters of dismissals and during the collective agreement negotiations by contrast to another trade union similarly having some of the staff of that employer among its members.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to form and join a trade union for the protection of occupational rights as guaranteed under Article 11 of the Convention (see Demir and Baykara v. Turkey [GC], no. 34503/97, § 140, ECHR 2008) and the right for a trade union to seek to persuade an employer to hear what it has to say on behalf of its members (ibid., § 145)?   2.     If so, was that interference prescribed by law, necessary and proportionate in terms of Article   11 § 2 of the Convention (see Sindicatul “Păstorul cel Bun” v. Romania [GC], no. 2330/09, §§   130-35, ECHR 2013 (extracts), and Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) and Norwegian Transport Workers’ Union (NTF) v. Norway , no. 45487/17, §§   114-15, 10 June 2021)?   a.     In particular, was the law defining a “primary” trade union and its preferential (in comparison to other trade unions) status in the procedures of trade-union members’ dismissal and collective agreement negotiations sufficiently clear and precise?   b.     On what conditions could an individual person join a non-primary trade union? What is the pressing social need of those conditions, if any?   с.     What is the pressing social need to provide the preferential status in the procedures of trade-union members’ dismissal and collective agreement negotiations only to primary trade unions, but not to other types?   d.     What alternative means and procedural safeguards were available to the applicants so that they could ensure the applicant trade union’s right to seek to persuade the employer to hear what it has to say on behalf of its members, to counterbalance the applicant trade union’s exclusion from the procedures of trade-union members’ dismissal and collective agreement negotiations?   3.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their rights under Article 11 of the Convention, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention?   In particular, have the applicants been subjected to a difference in treatment in the procedures of trade-union members’ dismissal and collective agreement negotiations?   If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification?   4.     Did the national courts address the substance of the applicants’ complaints, as required by Article 6 of the Convention, about the impossibility of the applicant trade union to protect the interests of its members in the procedures of trade-union members’ dismissal and collective agreement negotiations and their alleged discrimination by contrast to members of the primary trade union?   5.     The applicants are requested to provide copies of the Charter of the Russian Trade Union of Dockers and of the Regulations of the RPD OAO AMTP ( региональная профсоюзная организация Российского профсоюза докеров ОАО «Архангельский морской торговый порт» ). The three individual applicants are also requested to specify whether they had been concerned by the redundancy of the Port Companies’ personnel in January 2010.     APPENDIX List of the applicants whose complaints are communicated to the Government:   No. Applicant’s name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence/registration     RPD OAO AMTP 1992 n/a Arkhangelsk   Avenir Nikolayevich ALEKSANDROV 1953 Russian Arkhangelsk   Nikolay Nikolayevich MISHURIN 1954 Russian Vladimir   Yevgeniy Stepanovich POPOV 1958 Russian Arkhangelsk