CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 septembre 2011

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 144 August-September 2011 Şişman and Others v. Turkey - 1305/05 Judgment 27.9.2011 [Section II] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of association Disciplinary sanctions found to infringe trade-union freedom: violation   Facts – The applicants were civil servants working for tax offices attached to the Ministry of Finance and were board members of the local section of a trade union affiliated to the Trade Union Confederation of Public-Sector Employees. In May 2004 disciplinary proceedings were instituted against them for putting up posters encouraging participation in the annual 1   May workers’ demonstration on their own office walls, rather than on the notice board set aside for that purpose. The tax offices that employed them gave them a reprimand on the ground that posters displayed in areas other than the designated notice board were forbidden and constituted “visual pollution”. Deductions were subsequently made from their salaries on account of the reprimand. After noticing that other posters were on display elsewhere on office walls, the applicants appealed, arguing that they had been punished not for unauthorised posting but because the posters concerned trade-union activities. They further alleged that this amounted to intimidation against the trade union, since the measures taken against them were likely to have a negative impact on their career. In July 2004 the tax offices upheld the measures but downgraded the reprimands to warnings. Law – Article   11: The measure complained of amounted to interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of association. The warnings they had been given were prescribed by the Civil Servants Act. The Court doubted that the interference in the present case had pursued a legitimate aim. However, it considered it unnecessary to determine that question, in view of its conclusion regarding the necessity of the interference. The applicants had been given warnings as disciplinary penalties for putting up on their own office walls posters produced by their trade union, to celebrate International Workers’ Day on 1   May. Even assuming that the tax offices had made a notice board available to them for trade-union information, the applicants had not engaged in fly-posting causing visual pollution throughout their workplace. Their activities had been limited to the temporary use of their office walls to impart information to members of the union about the organisation of the event, which was viewed as a means of expressing solidarity among employees and of ensuring the full and independent exercise of their trade-union rights. In addition, bearing in mind the peaceful nature of the planned event, the posters in question had not contained any statements or illustrations that were illegal or shocking to the public. Regard being had to the important place of freedom of association in a democratic society, individuals did not enjoy that freedom if in reality the freedom of action or choice which remained available to them was either non-existent or so reduced as to be of no practical value. In the present case the sanction complained of, however minimal, was capable of deterring trade-union members from engaging freely in their activities. Accordingly, the warnings given to the applicants had not been “necessary in a democratic society”. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41: The four applicants were awarded EUR 482 jointly in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes