CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 21 novembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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   717 21.11.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT DEMİR AND BAYKARA v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Demir and Baykara v. Turkey (application no. 34503/97).   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.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Vicdan Baykara 20,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage to be transferred by her to a trade union, Tüm Bel Sen , and EUR 500 to Kemal Demir to cover all his claims. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Kemal Demir and Vicdan Baykara, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1951 in 1958 respectively. Mr. Demir lives in Gaziantep and Ms Baykara in İstanbul. At the material time, Ms Baykara was the general secretary of the Tüm Bel Sen trade union and Mr   Demir a member.   The case concerned a finding by the Court of Cassation that Tüm Bel Sen had no separate legal personality and the consequent cancellation of a collective bargaining agreement it had entered into with the Gaziantep Town Council.   Tüm Bel Sen was founded in 1990 by civil servants from various localities, with the object of promoting democratic trade unionism to serve the aspirations and needs of its members.   In 1993 it entered into a collective bargaining agreement with Gaziantep Town Council regulating all aspects of working conditions at the council, including salaries, benefits and welfare services. It later sued the council on the ground that it had defaulted on its obligations, in particular, those of a financial nature. It won the case at first instance.   However, on 6 December 1995 the Court of Cassation ruled that at the time Tum Bel Sen was founded, Turkish law did not permit civil servants to form unions and that it could not rely on the relevant international treaties as they were not yet applicable in Turkish law. It therefore concluded that Tum Bel Sen did not have legal personality or the capacity to enter into a collective bargaining agreement.   Following an audit of the town council’s accounts by the Audit Court, the State asked the members of Tum Bel Sen to reimburse the additional revenue they had received under the defunct collective bargaining agreement.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 8 October 1996. It was transferred to the Court on 1 November 1998 and declared partly admissible on 23   September 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Dragoljub Popović (Serbian), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicants complained under Articles 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) that the Turkish courts had denied them the right to form a trade union and to enter into a collective bargaining agreement.   Decision of the Court   Article 11   Right to form a union In the absence of any concrete evidence to show that Tüm Bel Sen ’s activities constituted a threat to society or the State, the Court held that the refusal to accord it legal personality violated Turkey’s obligations under Article 11.   Cancellation of the collective bargaining agreement The Court noted that the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the town council was the principal or even the only means by which the union could promote and defend the interests of its members. Accordingly, the cancellation of that agreement, which had been in effect for two years, constituted interference with the applicants’ freedom of association.   It further noted that the applicants had acted in good faith in choosing to enter into a collective bargaining agreement to defend their interests, as Turkey had previously ratified the UN Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention 1949 (no. 98), which afforded all workers the right to engage in collective bargaining and to enter into collective agreements.   The Court held that the decision to cancel an operative collective bargaining agreement with retrospective effect almost three years after its conclusion constituted a violation of the rights of Tüm Bel Sen and the applicants under Article 11.   Article 14 In the light of its findings under Article 11, the Court held that no separate examination of the complaint under Article 14 was necessary.       Judges Türmen, Fura-Sandström and Popović expressed a concurring opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts 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)   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.   [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.