CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 novembre 2024

.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 } .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 } Legal summary November 2024 Kaya v. Türkiye (dec.) - 51194/19 Decision 19.11.2024 [Section II] Article 11 Disciplinary sanctions imposed on civil servants for participating in a day of industrial action, called by their trade union but unrelated to defence of their own professional interests: inadmissible [This summary also covers the decision in the case of Almaz and Others v. Türkiye, 55789/19, 19   November 2024] Facts – In “the Almaz case” ( Almaz and three other applications): on 16 June 2013 the Confederation of Public Workers’ Unions (KESK) issued a call to demonstrate, encouraging its members to participate in its nationwide day of action in protest against “the Government’s repressive and violent actions” during the Gezi Park protests in Istanbul. The applicants took part in that protest, by failing to report for work on 17 June 2013: they received disciplinary sanctions in the form of warnings or reprimands. In the Kaya case: on 22 December 2015 the KESK called on its members to take part in a one-day work stoppage in protest against the “curfew” measures imposed in certain cities in south-east Türkiye. The applicant, who was a teacher, participated in this action on 29   December 2015: she was fined one-thirtieth of her monthly salary as a disciplinary sanction. In both cases, the applicants’ legal actions were rejected by the administrative courts on the grounds that the impugned sanctions had not breached the rights to freedom of association or to form a trade union. The applicants appealed to the Constitutional Court, which held that there had been no violation of Article 33 of the Constitution (right to freedom of association), in that “... the industrial action that [had given] rise to the disciplinary sanctions [had] pursued an aim predominately influenced by socio-political factors, linked to the country’s domestic policy ... and the purpose of the action [had] not fall[en] within the trade unions’ main sphere of activity ...”. Law – Article   11: As to whether there was a link in the present cases between the applicants’ participation in the work stoppages and their professional interests, in the Almaz case the main purpose of the applicants’ action had been to protest against the Government’s approach during the Gezi Park events, and, in the Kaya case, to protest against the imposition of a curfew in the south-eastern region of Türkiye. In neither case had the action called by the KESK referred to any specific claim linked to the applicants’ working conditions, professional interests or social and economic rights. In the Almaz case, it had been clearly stated from the outset that the political purpose of the action organised by the KESK had been to “protest against the Government’s repressive and violent actions”. In the Kaya case, the slogan chosen by the KESK for the one-day work stoppage – “No to war, we will defend peace” – had clearly highlighted the political nature of its action. The Court had already dealt with a number of cases concerning members or leaders of trade unions who had been sanctioned for taking part in work stoppages, or strikes, organised in protest against various events or actions. The domestic courts in those cases had found that the aim pursued by the actions in question had not fallen within the scope of trade-union activities. What the applicants in those cases had in common was that they had participated in industrial action, called by their trade union, which, beyond the specific circumstances of each case, concerned the workers’ professional interests or was linked to their social and economic rights or working conditions, either generally or more specifically. In contrast to those cases, the applicants in the present cases had not demonstrated that the main purpose of their work stoppages had been linked to their economic or social interests or their professional interests. The Court concluded that, while it had admittedly not examined in detail, for the purposes of the applicability of Article 11, the specific aims pursued by the actions at issue in the cases referred to above, it was clear from its case-law that the protection of workers’ professional interests had always to be at stake, whether in a general or a more specific context. In addition to the fact that “strike actions [were], in principle, protected by Article 11 only in so far as they [were] called by trade-union organisations and [were] considered an actual – as opposed to a merely presumed – part of trade-union activity”, there had to be, as the Court had already held in previous cases, a link between such actions and the professional interests of trade-union members. The case-law of other international courts confirmed this approach. The Court held that, in the circumstances of the present cases, the applicants could not rely on the right to trade-union freedom protected by Article 11, in that, having regard to the material in the case file, the disciplinary sanctions in question had not been imposed for participation in industrial action that had been organised by their trade union with a view to defending their own professional interests. Conclusion : inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae ). (See also Demir and Baykara v.   Turkey [GC], 34503/97, 12   November 2008, Legal Summary ; Barış and Others v.   Turkey (dec.), 66828/16 et al., 14   December 2021, Legal Summary ; Humpert and Others v.   Germany [GC], 59433/18, 14   December 2023, Legal Summary )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .