CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 février 2024

.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 } .s2BF5EB6D { margin-top:24pt; 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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7B89469B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s57ADAA01 { width:104.2%; margin-left:6.95pt; border-collapse:collapse } .sA2C51313 { width:7.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sCB86168D { width:40.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s87624184 { width:27.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA58AE15E { width:24.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB39FA211 { width:7.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1E42A678 { width:40.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFF7CF82E { width:27.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9540FE80 { width:24.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 4 March 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 33144/21 TRADE UNION OF SOCIAL SECTOR WORKERS and   Others against Hungary lodged on 9 June 2021 communicated on 16 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are a trade union, representing social sector workers engaged in providing essential services, and three of its members (see the appended table). The application concerns their right to organise a strike. On 17 December 2017 the first applicant, the Trade Union of Social Sector Workers ( Szociális Ágazatban Dolgozók Szakszerveztete ), joined by the Trade Union of Hungarian Civil Servants and Public Employees ( Magyar Köztisztviselők, Közalkalmazottak és Közszolgálati Dolgozók Szakszervezete ), decided to organise a strike seeking a number of measures to improve their working conditions, pay and pension rights and the establishment of a national labour roundtable. They announced the strike for 12 February, 13 March, 1 April, 13 May, 10 June, 15 July, 19 August, 16   September, 21 October, 18 November and 9 December 2020. 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 trade unions submitted their offer of minimum services to the Hungarian Government representative on 17 December 2019. They were informed on 15 January 2020 that their offer was not accepted by the Government, and they were instructed to submit a new offer. The trade unions lodged a request with the Budapest Administrative and Labour Court to define the nature and scope of minimum services. 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. On 25 May 2020 the Budapest Court of Appeal overturned the first-instance decision and held that no strike could be held during the covid-19 pandemic. The trade unions lodged a request for review with the Kúria. In a decision of 25 November 2020, served on the trade unions on 28 December 2020, the Kúria overturned the second-instance decision and upheld the decision rendered by the Budapest Administrative and Labour Court. The Kúria found that the Government had not fulfilled their statutory duty to make a genuine offer when negotiating the terms of minimum services to be maintained during the strike. The applicants complain that the failure of the Government to genuinely engage in negotiating the terms of the agreement on minimum services and the lengthy adjudication of their request infringed their right to strike, in violation of Article 11 of the Convention. They also submit that the domestic proceedings had not granted them “appropriate relief” in respect of their complaint, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ 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)?   2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?       APPENDIX List of applicants No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Place of residence/Seat 1. TRADE UNION OF SOCIAL SECTOR WORKERS 2015 Budakalász 2. Norbert FERENCZ 1981 Budapest 3. Mónika Julia KOLOZSI 1966 Esztergom 4. Bulcsú MIHÁLY 1980 Budapest