CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 avril 2015

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 184 April 2015 Junta Rectora Del Ertzainen Nazional Elkartasuna (ER.N.E.) v. Spain - 45892/09 Judgment 21.4.2015 [Section III] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of association Refusal to allow police officers to go on strike: no violation Facts – The applicant trade union is the largest trade union representing officials of the Basque Country police force. In 2004, following the collapse of negotiations with the Department of the Interior concerning working conditions, the applicant trade union’s executive committee applied to the Department of Justice, Employment and Social Security of the Basque Autonomous Community for authorisation to take strike action. The application was refused. Law – Article 11: The measure complained of had been prescribed by law and had pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder. Furthermore, the restriction laid down by the legislation in question did not apply to all public servants but was imposed exclusively on members of the State security forces, as guarantors of public safety. The same legislation gave those forces greater responsibility, requiring them to act at any time and in any place to uphold the law, both during and outside working hours. This need to provide a continuous service and the fact that these “law-enforcement agents” were armed distinguished this group from other civil servants and justified the restriction of their right to organise. The more stringent requirements imposed on them did not exceed what was necessary in a democratic society, in so far as those requirements served to protect the State’s general interests and in particular to ensure national security, public safety and the prevention of disorder, principles set forth in Article 11 § 2 of the Convention. The specific nature of those agents’ activities warranted granting the State a sufficiently wide margin of appreciation. Accordingly, the facts complained of in the present case did not amount to unjustified interference with the applicant trade union’s right to freedom of association, the essential content of which it had been able to exercise. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). The Court further held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 11. (See also the Factsheet on Trade union rights under the headings “Right to strike and right of peaceful assembly” and “Trade unions’ rights in the public sector”.)   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes