CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 avril 2025

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s887E3550 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } Published on 22 April 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 10992/24 Eva María PÁLSDÓTTIR against Iceland lodged on 11 April 2024 communicated on 4 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a complaint by a pharmacist employee of the national hospital ( Landspítali ). She complains about the refusal to recognise her union’s authority to represent her and the continued deduction of dues for remittance to her former union. The applicant resigned from the Icelandic Pharmacists Association (“LFÍ”) in July 2021 to join the Union of Natural Scientists in Iceland (“FÍN”). When she requested that Landspítali recognise FÍN as her bargaining representative and apply FÍN’s collective agreement to her employment, the hospital refused, maintaining that her terms and conditions must continue to be governed by the LFÍ collective agreement. It also continued to deduct trade union dues for remittance to LFÍ. FÍN initiated proceedings before the Labour Court for the recognition of its right to represent the applicant in collective bargaining. In accordance with the provisions of the Act on Collective Agreements for Public Employees no.   94/1986 (“the Act”), it also claimed, on behalf of the applicant, recognition of her right to take wages and enjoy work conditions in accordance with FÍN’s collective agreement. The Labour Court, in its final judgment of 15   December 2023, dismissed the claims. It held that generally, under the Act, only one union could have negotiating rights with the same employer for the same profession. While both FÍN and LFÍ had collective agreements with the State covering Landspítali employees, only LFÍ had specifically negotiated terms for pharmacist positions, whereas FÍN’s agreement was more general and not profession-specific. The Labour Court acknowledged that the applicant had the constitutional and Convention rights to join FÍN. Nevertheless, it found that in accordance with the Act, LFÍ alone held negotiating rights for pharmacist positions at Landspítali and that the framework for collective agreements created by the Act did not violate the applicant’s freedom of association. Before the Court, the applicant complains, under Article 11 of the Convention, that she was compelled to hold the membership of the LFÍ trade union, particularly as her full union dues were remitted to that union.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted the effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did she raise, either expressly or in substance, the question of the legal obligation imposed on employers, under Article 7(2) of the Act on Collective Agreements for Public Employees, to collect full union dues to the trade union to which employees should belong in accordance with the provisions of the Act? She is requested to submit a copy of her pleadings before the Labour Court. 2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of association under Article 11 of the Convention? In particular: (a)     On the facts, what specific consequences would the applicant face if she refused to pay membership fees to LFÍ? (i) Would she be able to maintain her employment at Landspítali ? (ii) Would she face any reduction in salary, benefits, or other terms of employment? (iii) Would her refusal to pay fees to LFÍ affect her professional advancement or status in any other way? (b)     Does the statutory organisation of collective bargaining, which does not allow the applicant to be covered by the collective agreement of her chosen union and obliges her to pay full membership fees to LFÍ, despite her membership of FÍN, “strike at the very substance of her right to freedom of association” and amount thereby to an interference with her rights under Article 11 of the Convention (compare Sørensen and Rasmussen v.   Denmark [GC], nos.   52562/99 and 52620/99, §   59-64, ECHR 2006-I, and Vörður Ólafsson v.   Iceland , no.   20161/06, §§   47-54, 27   April 2010)? (c)     If there has been an interference with the applicant’s rights, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it proportionate to that aim (compare Vörður Ólafsson , cited above, §§ 73-83)?