Published on 30 September 2024
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 45299/22
TEACHERS’ TRADE UNION and TEACHERS’ DEMOCRATIC TRADE UNION
against Hungary
lodged on 9 September 2022
communicated on 9 September 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicants are trade unions (Teachers’ Trade Union (Pedagógusok Szakszervezete), the first applicant, and the Teachers’ Democratic Trade Union (Pedagógusok Demokratikus Szakszervezete), the second applicant), representing the interests of teachers and other employees in the education sector. The applicants decided to organise a strike seeking a number of measures to improve the working conditions of employees in the education sector and to increase salaries in the sector.
Under the terms of section 4 (2) of Act no. VII of 1989 on the right to strike, in case of employers engaged in essential services to the population, a strike may only be held once the parties have reached an agreement on the nature and scope of essential services to be maintained during the strike, or in the absence of an agreement, once a final judicial decision has defined the scope and nature of minimum services.
The applicants submitted their offer of minimum services to the Hungarian Government representative on 5 October 2021. The parties’ negotiations in this respect produced no results and consequently the trade unions announced a two-hours warning strike for 31 January 2022. They also lodged a request with the Budapest Administrative and Labour Court to define the nature and scope of minimum services. On 28 January 2022 the first-instance court upheld the plaintiffs’ request as regards holding a strike and defined the minimum services to be maintained during the strike days and the applicants held the warning strike on 31 January 2022. On 10 February 2022 the Budapest Court of Appeal overturned the first-instance decision and held that the warning strike had been unlawful since it took place before the first-instance decision had become final. This decision was overturned by the Kúria on 15 June 2022.
The applicants initiated the continuation of the negotiations to define the scope of essential services for the indefinite strike announced for 16 March 2022. The negotiations scheduled for 10 February 2022 were delayed to 16 February 2022 upon the Government representative’s request.
On 10 February 2022 Government adopted Government Decree no. 36/2022 (II.11) defining the scope of essential services in public education institutions during the “state of danger”.
The applicants lodged a new request with the Budapest Administrative and Labour Court to define the nature and scope of minimum services in line with their offer addressed to the Government. Their request was dismissed on 24 February 2022 on the grounds that the issue had been regulated by the Government Decree. The applicants’ appeal was dismissed by the Budapest Court of Appeal and their constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible on 24 May 2022.
The applicants complain that they have been deprived of their right of access to a court as guaranteed in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. They maintain that by defining the content of essential services, the Government, through their Decree no. 36/2022 (II.11), effectively frustrated their right to have a court ruling on the matter.
The second applicant further complains, under Article 11 of the Convention, that the Government Decree was not sufficiently foreseeable, did not serve a legitimate aim and infringed the very essence of its right to strike.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a breach of the applicants’ right to access to a court as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
In particular, did Government Decree no. 36/2022 (II.11) constitute a restriction on the applicants’ right to access to a court?
If so, was that restriction of access to court justified and proportionate to any legitimate aim pursued?
2. Has there been a violation of the second applicant’s right to strike as protected by Article 11 of the Convention (see National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers v. the United Kingdom, no. 31045/10, 8 April 2014)?
In particular, did Government Decree no. 36/2022 (II.11) constitute an interference with the second applicant’s freedom of association, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention?
If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2?