CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 30 janvier 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD35C6159 { width:1.54pt; display:inline-block } .sAFD15926 { width:8.87pt; display:inline-block } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     058   30.01.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARING IN THE CASE OF WILSON, THE NUJ and OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   Wednesday 30 January 2002 at 9 a.m.   The applicants   The case concerns applications (nos. 30668/96, 30671/96 & 30678/96) brought by United Kingdom nationals - David Wilson, Terence Palmer, Arthur Wyeth and Michael Doolan - and two trade unions, the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (NURMTW).   Summary of the facts   Mr Wilson was a journalist employed by the British newspaper publishing company Associated Newspapers Limited. The NUJ is a trade union which had been recognised for collective bargaining concerning the employment terms and conditions of its members. In November 1989 Associated Newspapers Limited gave notice that it intended to de-recognise the NUJ and terminate all aspects of collective bargaining and that personal contracts were to be introduced with a 4.5% pay increase for journalists who signed the personal contracts and accepted de-recognition. Mr Wilson refused to sign. In subsequent years his salary increased, but was never raised to the level of those who had received a 4.5% increase.   Mr Palmer and Mr Wyeth were employed by Associated British Ports (ABP) at the Port of Southampton as manual grade employees. They were members of the NURMTW, which was recognised by ABP for collective bargaining. In February 1991 the ABP Southampton manual grade employees were offered personal contracts. Employees who signed were offered a pay increase of approximately 10%, together with private medical insurance, if they agreed to give up union representation in pay negotiations. Mr Palmer and Mr Wyeth refused to sign and consequently did not receive the pay increase or the private medical insurance. In 1992 ABP gave notice that it was terminating the collective agreement and de-recognising the union for all purposes.     The other individual applicants were all employed by ABP at the Bute Docks in Cardiff and were also NURMTW members. In 1991 each applicant was sent a letter offering him a personal contract including an increase in pay if he relinquished all rights to trade union recognition and representation and agreed that annual increases and other terms and conditions would no longer be negotiated by the union on his behalf. The applicants refused to sign. Employees, holding the same positions as the applicants, who accepted personal contracts, received an annual pay rise approximately 8-9% greater than that awarded to the applicants.   The individual applicants all separately applied to industrial tribunals complaining that the requirement to sign the personal contract and lose union rights, or accept a lower pay rise, was contrary to section 23(1)(a) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. The proceedings brought by Mr Wilson, Mr Palmer and Mr Wyeth ended up in the House of Lords, which found unanimously against them on 16   March 1995.   Complaints   All the applicants, including the two unions, complain of a violation of Article 11 (freedom of association) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The individual applicants additionally rely on Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Procedure   The applications were lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights in 1995 and declared admissible on 16 September 1997.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , András Baka (Hungarian), Gaukur Jörundsson (Icelandic), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), judges , Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers , ad hoc judge , Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), substitute judges ,   and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government:   Huw Llewellyn , Agent , James Eadie , Jason Coppel , Counsel , Richard Baker , Jonathan Startup , Advisers ;   Applicants:   John Hendy, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton , Jennifer Eady , Counsel , Stephen Cavalier , Paul Statham , Solicitors , John Foster , Adviser .   The applicant Mr Wilson will also attend the hearing.     After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.     Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court.