Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FEDERATION DES SYNDICATS DE TRAVAILLEURS OFFSHORE et AUTRES c. NORVEGE

  Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FEDERATION OF OFFSHORE WORKERS' TRADE UNIONS AND OTHERS v. NORWAY

  Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 06.02.1976 - 5589/72

  SCHMIDT ET DAHLSTRÖM c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2002 - 38190/97

  The court also had regard to the European Court's Schmidt and Dahlström v. Sweden judgment of 6 February 1976 (Series A no. 21), and noted that neither the Commission nor the Court had found an infringement of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention by virtue of the award of increments to members of non-striking unions, but not to members of striking unions, which included the applicants although they had not actually been on strike themselves.

  Furthermore, Contracting States are left a free choice of means as to how the freedom of trade unions ought to be safeguarded (see the Schmidt and Dahlström v. Sweden judgment of 6 February 1976, Series A no. 21, pp. 15-16, §§ 34-36; and UNISON v. the United Kingdom cited above).

• EGMR, 10.01.2002 - 53574/99

  UNISON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2002 - 38190/97

  The Court observes that in several cases concerning collective aspects of trade union freedom (see the National Union of Belgian Police v. Belgium judgment of 27 October 1975, Series A no. 19; the Swedish Engine Drivers" Union judgment of 6 February 1976, Series A no. 20), including strike action (see UNISON v. the United Kingdom, no. 53574/99, dec. 10.01.2002, ECHR 2002-), the Court has examined complaints brought by a trade union under this Article.

• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 2330/09

  SINDICATUL

  Specifically, to address the perceived dangers alluded to by the Romanian Government regarding the applicant union's potential right to strike - although this is certainly one of the most important union rights - the Grand Chamber judgment should have taken into account two aspects of the Court's case-law: (1) the right to strike is not an absolute right (see Schmidt and Dahlström v. Sweden, 6 February 1976, § 36, Series A no. 21, and Dilek and Others v. Turkey, nos. 74611/01, 26876/02 and 27628/02, § 68, 17 July 2007), and (2) limitations on the right to strike may under certain circumstances be permissible in a democratic society (see UNISON v. the United Kingdom (dec.) no. 53574/99, ECHR 2002-I; Federation of Offshore Workers" Trade Unions and Others v. Norway (dec.), no. 38190/97, ECHR 2002-VI; and Enerji Yapı-Yol Sen v. Turkey, no. 68959/01, § 32, 21 April 2009).
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE

  Yet, in cases under those provisions - as well as under Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 1, or Article 2 §§ 3 and 4 of Protocol No. 4 - respondent Governments normally have a relatively easy task in persuading the Court that the interference pursued a legitimate aim, even when the applicants cogently argue that it actually pursued an unavowed ulterior purpose (see, for example, Weber v. Switzerland, 22 May 1990, §§ 44-45, Series A no. 177; Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria, 24 November 1993, §§ 31 and 33, Series A no. 276; Federation of Offshore Workers" Trade Unions v. Norway (dec.), no. 38190/97, ECHR 2002-VI; and United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden-PIRIN and Others (no. 2), cited above, §§ 85-90).
• EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 44873/09

  OGNEVENKO v. RUSSIA

  The applicant reiterated that the test of necessity in a democratic society required the Court to determine whether the interference complained of had corresponded to a "pressing social need", whether it had been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and whether the reasons given by the national authorities to justify it had been relevant and sufficient (see, for instance, Federation of Offshore Workers" Trade Unions and Others v. Norway (dec.), no. 38190/97, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 2451/16

  ASSOCIATION OF ACADEMICS v. ICELAND

  The Court found no violation of Article 11, inter alia, in Federation of Offshore Workers" Trade Unions and Others v. Norway ((dec.), no. 38190/97, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 1278/11

  ROFFEY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  As it has previously stated, the words "for the protection of his interests" in Article 11 of the Convention cannot be construed as meaning that only individuals and not trade unions may make a complaint under this provision (Federation of Offshore Workers" Trade Unions and Others v. Norway (dec.), no. 38190/97, ECHR 2002-VI).