CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 mai 2024

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 17 June 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 29545/22 POA Prison Officers’ Association against the United Kingdom lodged on 8 June 2022 communicated on 29 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 10 December 2020 the Secretary of State for Justice announced his decision to reject a recommendation by the Prison Service Pay Review Body (“the PSPRB”) for a pay rise for certain prison officers. The Secretary of State further indicated that the next PSPRB review should be constrained by the Government’s decision to limit increases in public sector pay. The applicant   –   a trade union representing over 30,000 prison, correctional and secure psychiatric workers – sought to judicially review those decisions, arguing, inter alia , that either or both breached Article 11 of the Convention. Section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 provided that it was unlawful for anyone to induce a prison officer to engage in industrial action. The applicant argued that the PSPRB was intended to provide a compensatory mechanism for this ban on industrial action and, in rejecting the recommendation of the PSPRB, and in deciding to limit the role of the PSPRB the following year, the Secretary of State had undermined its role in this regard. On 20 September 2021 permission to apply for judicial review was refused. While the judge acknowledged that the Article 11 argument raised important considerations, he noted that the Convention did not require the provision of legally binding arbitration, and there was a margin of appreciation in how any restrictions on the right to strike were accommodated. The applicant renewed its claim. Following an oral hearing on 15 December 2021 permission to apply for judicial review was refused on all grounds save one; namely, whether the decision to reject the PSPRB’s recommendation was a breach of the public sector equality duty. On 7 April 2022 the applicant was refused permission to appeal against the refusal of its other grounds. In the brief reasons provided for this decision the Court of Appeal held, inter   alia , that neither the rejection of the PSPRB’s recommendation nor the directions subsequently given to the PSPRB as to the matters which it should consider were contrary to Article 11 of the Convention. The applicant contends that the current arrangements – in particular, the statutory strike ban – violate Article 11 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the complaint now made before the Court aired in substance before the domestic courts? Alternatively, is the present application premature, given that the applicant has been granted permission to apply for judicial review on the ground that the decision to reject the PSPRB’s recommendation may have breached the public sector equality duty?   2.     Having regard to the Court’s case-law, in particular its judgment in Humpert and Others v. Germany ([GC] nos. 59433/18 and 3 others, 14   December 2023), do the facts of the present case disclose any violation of Article 11 of the Convention?