CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 21 février 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s2C7B3542 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#0000ff } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   94 21.2.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT TÜM HABER SEN AND ÇINAR v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Tüm Haber Sen and Çınar v. Turkey (application no. 28602/95). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the dissolution of the trade union Tüm Haber Sen; and that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) taken together with Article 11 of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the applicants did not submit any claims for just satisfaction after the decision on admissibility.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants are a trade union, Tüm Haber Sen, and its former president, İsmail Çinar, a Turkish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Istanbul. The trade union, which has now been dissolved, was active between 1992 and 1995. At the time when it was dissolved it had 40,000 members working in the civil service.   Tüm Haber Sen was founded on 16 January 1992 by 851 public-sector contract staff working in the communications field, in particular for the post office (PTT) and the telecommunications service (Türk Telekom).   On 20   January 1992 the Istanbul Governor’s Office sought an order for the suspension of Tüm Haber Sen’s activities and its dissolution on the ground that civil servants could not form trade unions. The Court of First Instance allowed the application and ordered the union’s dissolution on 15   December 1992. The Court of Cassation quashed that order and remitted the case to the Court of First Instance, which confirmed its initial judgment. The applicants again appealed to the Court of Cassation. In a judgment of 24 May 1995 the Court of Cassation, sitting as a full court, ordered the dissolution of Tüm Haber Sen, holding that in the absence of any statutory provisions governing the legal status of trade unions for civil servants and public-sector contract workers, the applicant trade union could not claim to have any legal basis.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 21 August 1995. It was referred to the Court on 1 November 1998 and was declared partly admissible on 13 November 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Danute Jočienė (Lithuanian), Dragoljub Popović (citizen of Serbia and Montenegro), judges , and also Stanley Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants complained that the dissolution of Tüm Haber Sen and the enforced cessation of its activities had infringed their right to freedom of assembly and association. They relied on Articles 11 and 13 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 11   The Court reiterated that Article 11 of the Convention presented trade-union freedom as one form or a special aspect of freedom of association and was binding on the “State as employer”, whether the latter’s relations with its employees were governed by public or private law.   At the time when it had been dissolved Tüm Haber Sen had not engaged in any collective bargaining, entered into any collective agreements or even organised a strike. It had therefore been dissolved solely on the ground that it had been founded by civil servants and its members were civil servants.   The Court noted that the Turkish Government had provided no explanation as to how the absolute prohibition on forming trade unions, imposed by Turkish law as applied at the time on civil servants and public-sector contract workers in the communications field, had met a “pressing social need”.   At the material time Turkey had already ratified International Labour Organisation Convention no.   87, which secured to all workers, without any distinction between the public and private sectors, the unrestricted right to establish and join trade unions. Furthermore, although Turkey was the only State, together with Greece, that had not yet accepted Article   5 of the European Social Charter, the Charter’s committee of independent experts had construed that provision – which afforded all workers the right to form trade unions – as applying to civil servants as well.   Accordingly, in the absence of any concrete evidence to show that the founding or the activities of Tüm Haber Sen had represented a threat to Turkish society or the Turkish State, the Court was unable to accept that the union’s dissolution could be justified by an absolute statutory prohibition. In view of the lack of clear legislative provisions on the subject at the relevant time and the broad manner in which the courts had interpreted the restrictions on civil servants’ trade-union rights, Turkey had failed to comply with its positive obligation to secure the enjoyment of the rights under Article 11 of the Convention.   The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 11.   Article 13 taken together with Article 11   Having regard to its conclusions under Article   11, the Court did not consider it necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 13 taken together with Article 11.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)   Beverley Jacobs (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.