CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 novembre 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 } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sCA3E75FF { width:121.54%; border-collapse:collapse } .s6C2A95DF { width:6.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sA0EE2469 { width:48.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s76986622 { width:22.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s66732282 { width:22.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s68207EE7 { width:6.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCB3A58D6 { width:48.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s346F4FF1 { width:22.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s53532DF { width:22.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 2 December 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 33159/23 TEACHERS’ TRADE UNION and Others against Hungary lodged on 30 August 2023 communicated on 14 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are two trade unions (the Teachers’ Trade Union ( Pedagógusok Szakszervezete ), the first applicant, and the Teachers’ Democratic Trade Union ( Pedagógusok Demokratikus Szakszervezete ), the second applicant), representing the interests of teachers and other employees in the education sector, and a teacher (Ms B. Kiss-Berta, the third applicant). The first and second applicants planned to organise a strike seeking a number of measures to improve the renumeration and working conditions of employees in the public education sector. They envisaged a warning, and in case it was unsuccessful, an indefinite strike for early 2022. They started negotiations with the Government on the scope of essential services in late December 2021. Under the terms of section 4   (2) of Act no. VII of 1989 on the right to strike, in case of employers engaged in essential services to the population, a strike may only be held once the parties have reached an agreement on the nature and scope of minimum services to be maintained during the strike, or in the absence of an agreement, once a final judicial decision has defined the scope and nature of minimum services. On 10 February 2022 the Government adopted Government Decree no.   36/2022 (II.11) defining the scope of minimum services in public education institutions during the “state of danger”. On 6 May 2022 Parliament adopted Act no. V of 2022 on regulatory issues related to the termination of the state of danger. Sections 14 and 15 of the Act defined the scope of minimum services in public education in accordance with Government Decree no. 36/2022 (II.11). The applicants filed a constitutional complaint on 7 November 2022, arguing that Act no. V of 2022 constituted a violation of their right to strike. The complaint was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 3 May 2023, which decision was served on the applicants on 2 September 2023. The applicants complain that they have been deprived of their right of access to a court as guaranteed in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. They maintain that by defining the content of essential services, Act no. V of 2022 effectively frustrated their right to have a court ruling on the matter. In addition, the applicants complain that Act no. V of 2022, by defining the content of minimum services in a disproportionally broad manner, deprives the substance of their right to strike, as protected under Article 11 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.       Has there been a breach of the applicants’ right of access to a court as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did Act no.   V of 2022 constitute a restriction on the applicants’ right of access to a court (see Organisation nationale des syndicats d’infirmiers libéraux (ONSIL) v.   France (dec.), no. 39971/98, ECHR 2000-IX?)   2.     If so, was that restriction of access to court justified and proportionate to any legitimate aim pursued?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to strike as protected by Article 11 of the Convention (see National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers v. the United Kingdom , no.   31045/10, 8   April 2014)? In particular, did Act no. V of 2022 constitute an interference with the applicants’ freedom of association, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention? 4.     If so, was that interference necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2?       APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Place of residence 1. TEACHERS’ TRADE UNION (PEDAGÓGUSOK SZAKSZERVEZETE) 1989 Budapest 2. TEACHERS’ DEMOCRATIC TRADE UNION (PEDAGÓGUSOK DEMOKRATIKUS SZAKSZERVEZETE) 1989 Budapest 3. Beáta KISS-BERTA 1977 Budapest