CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 novembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s59947BC4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3B53EBCA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Communicated on 5 November 2020 Published on 23 November 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 35673/15 NATIONAL TRADE UNION WORKERS’ INITIATIVE against Poland lodged on 13 July 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant is a nation-wide trade union called the “National Trade Union Workers’ Initiative” ( Ogólnopolski Związek Zawodowy Inicjatywa Pracownicza ), registered in 2004 in Poznan, Poland.   The applicant trade union is represented before the Court by Mr A. Ploszka, a lawyer living in Warsaw. The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3.     The applicant trade union was set up by the employees of the country ‑ wide chain of shops owned by the company “Aelia Polska Ltd” (thereafter, the “Aelia company”). The statutory aims of the trade union are, inter alia , to represent and defend the interests of the trade union’s members and to fight for the improvement of their working and safety conditions, as well as for decent salaries. 4.     On 25 August 2014 the Aelia company lodged a civil action in the Poznań Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) against the applicant for infringement of its personal rights, claiming that the defendant - by organising pickets and distributing leaflets against the company - had tarnished the company’s good name. The plaintiff sought an injunction, namely that the defendant be ordered to cease its activities targeting the plaintiff. Together with its main action, the plaintiff applied for a preliminary injunction in the case. 5.     One of the leaflets in question was entitled “Ethical Consumer Voucher”. It described how Aelia’s shop employees had to stand for 10 ‑ 12   hours a day, were faced with last-minute changes in their work schedule, did not have work clothes provided for them, were disrespected, etc. It was also noted in the leaflet that when the employees had started to become active in the “Workers’ Initiative” trade union, the group’s leader was dismissed from work. The leaflet encouraged Aelia’s customers to show their disapproval of the company’s unethical conduct and their support for the employees’ freedom of assembly. 6.     On 26 September 2014 the Poznań Regional Court granted a preliminary injunction, thus banning the applicant trade union for one year ‑ which was the maximum statutory time-limit - from publishing in the mass media any materials concerning the allegations of the exploitation, repression and bullying of trade union members by the company’s employers because of their activities in the union. The domestic court also prohibited – “for a time necessary for reaching the ruling on the merits of the case”- the dissemination of the “Ethical Consumer’s Voucher” and the trade union’s bulletin. The court also prohibited – “for a time necessary for reaching the ruling on the merits of the case”- the organisation of any pickets linked to the alleged employees’ exploitation, repression and bullying, as well as the use of the company’s trade mark. 7.     On 29 December 2014 the Poznań Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) dismissed the applicant’s interlocutory appeal against the preliminary injunction. Firstly, the appellate court found that the plaintiff had substantiated its claim and had proved that the applicant trade union was indeed engaged in a large-scale dissemination of materials which alleged that employees across the country were being exploited. Secondly, the court considered that the way in which the materials were disseminated could give a negative impression of the company, which, in turn, could lead to a large financial loss. Overall, the preliminary injunction was to protect the plaintiff from suffering irreversible harm to its important interests, as well as the public interest, namely to secure the possibility of fully implementing any future judgment if the ruling were to be for the plaintiff. 8.     On 4 February 2016 the Poznań Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s application for the lifting of the preliminary injunction (which   had been lodged in 26 September 2015) and granted the plaintiff’s application to have the preliminary injunction extended for another year. 9.     On 30 December 2016 the Poznań Court of Appeal altered the above ‑ mentioned decision in that it dismissed the plaintiff’s application for the extension of the preliminary injunction on the grounds that it had been lodged out of time, that is to say, not within one year from 26   September 2014. 10.     The applicant has not informed the Court of the subsequent course of the main proceedings. COMPLAINTS The applicant trade union complains under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that the ban on its activities targeting the Aelia company whose employees were the trade union’s members, constituted an unlawful and unjustified interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. In particular, the applicant argues that the preliminary injunction was not in accordance with the law in so far as, in respect of the trade union’s leaflets and pickets, it was to stay in place for an unspecified time and not for the statutory limit of one year. Moreover, the range of the trade union’s activities which were covered by the court’s ban was disproportionately wide.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant trade union’s right to freedom of expression, in particular its right to impart information, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant trade union’s right to freedom of assembly, in particular its right to organise pickets, contrary to Article   11 of the Convention?