CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 mai 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 185 May 2015 Doğan Altun v. Turkey - 7152/08 Judgment 26.5.2015 [Section II] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of association Warning issued against trade-union representative for organising event on work premises outside working hours: violation Facts – At the material time the applicant worked for Ankara municipality and belonged to a trade union. In November 2006 he and another member of the trade union installed ballot boxes at the door of the canteen in the department for which he worked with a view to holding a referendum on the budget. In May 2007 he received a warning for having organised a referendum without the authorisation of the director of the department in question. Law – Article 11: The impugned measure could be considered interference in the applicant’s right to freedom of association. The foreseeability of the penalty imposed on the applicant was questionable, as was the legitimacy of its aims. Furthermore, it was not even sure that there was any obligation to obtain prior authorisation. Nevertheless, the Court saw no need to go any further into those questions. During the disciplinary proceedings, the applicant had pointed out that he had organised the referendum in his capacity as secretary of a section of the trade union. Moreover, according to the actual decision imposing the warning, there had been no disruption to the work of the departmental staff. Furthermore, the applicant was sanctioned for having organised a referendum during the lunch break without prior authorisation from his employer, notwithstanding that according to the legislation no sanction could be imposed on civil servants for participating in trade union demonstrations outside of working hours, even if they had not obtained their employer’s authorisation. The Court therefore considered that the applicant was penalised by the disciplinary authorities even though the latter had not in any way considered the capacity in which he had organised the referendum. Lastly, however minimal the impugned sanction had been, it had been liable to deter the applicant and other trade union members from freely exercising their activities. Consequently, it had not been demonstrated that the warning imposed corresponded to any overriding social need. It had therefore not been established that there had been a reasonable relation of proportionality between the interference in the applicant’s freedom of association and the aim pursued – the legitimacy of such aim having been accepted – or that the interference had been “necessary in a democratic society”. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). The Court also unanimously found a violation of Article   13 of the Convention on account of the absence of an effective remedy. Article 41: EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (See also the Factsheet on Trade union rights under “Right to strike and right of peaceful assembly”)   © 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