Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NORWEGIAN CONFEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS (LO) AND NORWEGIAN TRANSPORT WORKERS' UNION (NTF) v. NORWAY

  No violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  NORWEGIAN CONFEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS (LO) AND NORWEGIAN TRANSPORT WORKERS" UNION (NTF) v. NORWAY

  Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

Papierfundstellen

• NZA 2022, 1206

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 31045/10

  THE NATIONAL UNION OF RAIL, MARITIME AND TRANSPORT WORKERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2021 - 45487/17

  The Court notes that in National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers v. the United Kingdom (no. 31045/10, § 76, 8 April 2014), as regards the applicability of Article 11 to a sympathy strike, it held that it would be inconsistent with the method of interpretation outlined in Demir and Baykara, cited above, § 85, for it to adopt in relation to that provision an interpretation of the scope of freedom of association of trade unions that is much narrower than that which prevails in international law (see in relation to the latter paragraphs 70-73 above).

  The right to collective bargaining has not been interpreted as including a "right" to a collective agreement, nor does the right to strike imply a right to prevail (National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers v. the United Kingdom, no. 31045/10, judgment of 8 April 2014, § 85).

  In National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers v. the United Kingdom (no. 31045/10, § 106, ECHR 2014), the Court emphasised, however, that the conclusion which it had reached in that case, in which it found that a ban on taking secondary industrial action against an employer not party to a labour dispute did not violate Article 11, should not be understood as calling into question the analysis effected on the basis of those standards and their purposes by the ILO Committee of Experts and the European Committee on Social Rights.

• EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 45036/98

  Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi ./. Irland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2021 - 45487/17

  The Government 79. The Government submitted that EEA law provided for the protection of human rights which was similar to the protection provided for by the Convention, and that there was a presumption of compliance with the Convention which was the same as or similar to that set out in Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland ([GC], no. 45036/98, ECHR 2005-VI), a case concerning the implementation of EU law.

  As regards the second preliminary issue, the Court reiterates that it has held that if an organisation to which a Contracting State has transferred jurisdiction is considered to protect fundamental rights in a manner which can be considered at least "equivalent" to that for which the Convention provides, the presumption will be that a State has not departed from the requirements of the Convention when it does no more than implement legal obligations flowing from its membership of the organisation (see Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, §§ 152-153, ECHR 2005-VI, §§ 155-56 and Konkurrenten.no AS v. Norway (dec.), no. 47341/15, § 42, 5 November 2019).

• EuGH, 11.12.2014 - C-576/13

  Kommission / Spanien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2021 - 45487/17

  The minority concluded that at the time there were no good alternatives to the priority system in the Framework Agreement, and took note that the CJEU, in European Commission v. Kingdom of Spain (EU:C:2014:2430, § 41, 11 December 2014), had indicated that an arrangement resembling that in the Framework Agreement would ensure the rights under ILO Convention No. 137 without violating freedom of establishment.

  In Commission v. Spain (C-576/13, EU:C:2014:2430, 11 December 2014) the CJEU held that, by obliging undertakings of other EU Member States wishing to exercise the activity of cargo-handling in Spanish ports of general interest, first, to register with the Dockers" Management Public Limited Liability Company (Sociedad Anónima de Gestion de Estibadores Portuarios) and, as appropriate, to hold shares in that company and, secondly, to employ as a priority workers provided by that company, including a minimum number on permanent contracts, Spain had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU.

 
• EGMR, 13.08.1981 - 7601/76

  YOUNG, JAMES ET WEBSTER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2021 - 45487/17

  The Court notes that had it been established by the domestic courts that the announced boycott would impinge on the negative freedom of association because of the issue of a "closed shop", the case would have required a balancing of competing rights protected by the first paragraph of Article 11 of the Convention (see, for example, Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94 and 2 others, § 113, ECHR 1999-III; and, with regard to the term "closed shop", Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom, 13 August 1981, § 13, Series A no. 44).
• EFTA-Gerichtshof, 26.07.2016 - E-28/15

  Yankuba Jabbi v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Immigration Appeals …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2021 - 45487/17

  Secondly, and although the EFTA Court has expressed the view that the provisions of the EEA Agreement "are to be interpreted in the light of fundamental rights" in order to enhance coherency between EEA law and EU law (see, inter alia, the EFTA Court's judgment in its case E-28/15 Yankuba Jabbi [2016] para. 81), the EEA Agreement does not include the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, or any reference whatsoever to other legal instruments having the same effect, such as the Convention.
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2021 - 45487/17

  The Court notes that had it been established by the domestic courts that the announced boycott would impinge on the negative freedom of association because of the issue of a "closed shop", the case would have required a balancing of competing rights protected by the first paragraph of Article 11 of the Convention (see, for example, Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94 and 2 others, § 113, ECHR 1999-III; and, with regard to the term "closed shop", Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom, 13 August 1981, § 13, Series A no. 44).
• EGMR, 05.11.2019 - 47341/15

  KONKURRENTEN.NO AS v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2021 - 45487/17

  As regards the second preliminary issue, the Court reiterates that it has held that if an organisation to which a Contracting State has transferred jurisdiction is considered to protect fundamental rights in a manner which can be considered at least "equivalent" to that for which the Convention provides, the presumption will be that a State has not departed from the requirements of the Convention when it does no more than implement legal obligations flowing from its membership of the organisation (see Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, §§ 152-153, ECHR 2005-VI, §§ 155-56 and Konkurrenten.no AS v. Norway (dec.), no. 47341/15, § 42, 5 November 2019).
• EuGH, 18.12.2007 - C-341/05

  Freier Dienstleistungsverkehr - Zur Vereinbarkeit einer kollektiven Maßnahme mit …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2021 - 45487/17

  For EU and EEA law, this followed from, inter alia, the judgments in Viking, cited above, and Laval of the CJEU (Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundets avd. 1, Byggettan, Svenska Elektrikerförbundet, C-341/05, EU:C:2007:809, 18 December 2007).
• EuGH, 11.12.2007 - C-438/05

  KOLLEKTIVE MASSNAHMEN, DIE DARAUF ABZIELEN, EIN AUSLÄNDISCHES UNTERNEHMEN ZUM …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2021 - 45487/17

  Reference was made to the case-law of the CJEU (International Transport Workers" Federation and Finnish Seamen"s Union v. Viking Line ABP and OÜ Viking Line Eesti, C-438/05, EU:C:2007:772, § 81, 11 December 2007), where it had been stated that while a collective action "could reasonably be considered to fall, at first sight, within the objective of protecting workers, such a view would no longer be tenable if it were established that the jobs or conditions of employment at issue were not jeopardised or under serious threat".
• EFTA-Gerichtshof, 19.04.2016 - E-14/15

  Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeiderforbund - Articles 31, 53 and 54 EEA - …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2021 - 45487/17

  The EFTA Court gave its opinion in a judgment of 19 April 2016 (E-14/15 Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeiderforbund), part of which reads as follows:.
• EuGH, 11.02.2021 - C-407/19

  Ein Gesetz, das die Hafenarbeit anerkannten Arbeitern vorbehält, kann mit dem …

• EGMR, 05.07.2022 - 815/18

  Tarifeinheitsgesetz verstößt nicht gegen die EMRK

  Die Tatsache, dass das Erreichen eines gerechten Ausgleichs zwischen den jeweiligen Interessen der Beschäftigten und der Geschäftsführung heikle gesellschaftliche und politische Fragen aufwirft und es große Unterschiede zwischen den einzelnen innerstaatlichen Systemen in diesem Bereich gibt, legt einen weiten Ermessensspielraum der Mitgliedstaaten hinsichtlich der Frage nahe, wie die Gewerkschaftsfreiheit und der Schutz beruflicher Interessen von Gewerkschaftsmitgliedern gesichert werden können (…siehe Sindicatul "Pastorul cel Bun"./. Rumänien [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 2330/09, Rdnr. 133, ECHR 2013 (Auszüge);… National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, a. a. O., Rdnrn. 86 und 91; und Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) und Norwegian Transport Workers' Union (NTF)./. Norwegen, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 45487/17, Rdnrn. 97 und 114, 10. Juni 2021).
• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 16760/22

  EXECUTIEF VAN DE MOSLIMS VAN BELGIË ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  Il ne s'agit donc pas, en l'espèce, d'effectuer une mise en balance de deux droits d'égale valeur au regard de la Convention (voir, mutatis mutandis, Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) et Norwegian Transport Workers' Union (NTF) c. Norvège, no 45487/17, § 118, 10 juin 2021 ; voir a contrario Von Hannover c. Allemagne (no 2) [GC], nos 40660/08 et 60641/08, § 106, CEDH 2012, et Hurbain c. Belgique [GC], no 57292/16, § 211, 4 juillet 2023, où des droits d'égale valeur garantis par la Convention se trouvaient en conflit).
• EGMR, 06.02.2024 - 56440/15

  SNIJDERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Although, in accordance with the proposed view as explained below, the said sub-right should not be subjected to any implied limitation or restriction, if, however, any restriction were to be allowed to this sub-right then it should be interpreted narrowly and strictly, and not broadly, as required by the principle of effectiveness, and as the Court's case-law has done in respect of restrictions of other Convention rights, such as those of Articles 8-11 (see, inter alia, Sidiropoulos and Others v. Greece, no. 26695/95, § 38, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; Demir and Baykara [GC], no. 34503/97, § 119, ECHR 2008; Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) and Norwegian Transport Workers' Union (NTF) v. Norway, no. 45487/17, § 96, 10 June 2021; and my dissenting opinion in Humpert and Others v. Germany [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 36658/18

  ZHABLYANOV v. BULGARIA

  If that were the case, then such an interpretation of the law would amount to a broad limitation to the applicant's freedom of expression and would therefore contravene the principle of effectiveness - one of the most fundamental principles of the Convention - which requires that "limitations to rights must be construed restrictively, in a manner which gives practical and effective protection to human rights" (see, inter alia, Demir and Baykara v. Turkey [GC], no. 34503/97, § 146, ECHR 2008, and Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) and Norwegian Transport Workers' Union (NTF) v. Norway, no. 45487/17, § 96, 10 June 2021).