## Facts

- Municipal civil servants formed Tüm Bel Sen in 1990 as a public-sector trade union.
- In February 1993, the union and a municipal council concluded a two-year collective agreement governing pay, benefits, and working conditions, effective retroactively to January 1993.
- After the municipality failed to perform financial obligations under the agreement, the union’s president sued to enforce it in a district court.
- The district court upheld the agreement as valid and binding; the court of cassation twice quashed, holding that, while civil servants could form unions, domestic law did not authorize those unions to conclude collective agreements.
- Following the domestic judgments, an audit authority required repayment of additional sums paid under the agreement, and officials involved in similar agreements faced proceedings for abuse of power.
- The applicants complained that the refusal to give effect to the agreement and to recognize the union’s bargaining capacity violated the right to freedom of association.

## Issues

1. Whether nullifying a public-sector union’s collective agreement and denying its capacity to bargain constituted an unjustified interference with freedom of association under Article 11.
2. Whether Article 11 may be interpreted in light of international labor instruments and comparative practice, including materials not ratified by the respondent state.
3. Whether a separate analysis under the non-discrimination provision was required given the Article 11 claim.

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber unanimously found a violation of Article 11.
- The Court treated the annulment of the collective agreement and the related repayment consequences as an interference with trade-union rights, including collective bargaining.
- The interference was not shown to be necessary in a democratic society; the state failed to provide convincing and compelling reasons for a broad restriction on municipal civil servants’ collective bargaining.
- The Court held it unnecessary to examine the non-discrimination claim separately.
- The Court awarded just satisfaction for damages and costs.

## Legal Principles

- Article 11 protects not only the right to form and join trade unions, but also core union activities aimed at protecting members’ interests, including collective bargaining.
- Restrictions on freedom of association for public employees must be construed strictly; only convincing and compelling reasons can justify limiting union rights, and any limitation must be proportionate.
- The permissible scope of restrictions for public service under Article 11(2) does not justify a blanket denial of collective bargaining for municipal civil servants.
- The Convention is interpreted as a living instrument; the Court may consider international treaties, supervisory-body practice, and comparative European trends as interpretive aids to determine the contemporary scope of Convention rights, even when particular instruments have not been ratified by the respondent state.

## Conclusion

The Court held that denying a municipal civil-servant union the capacity to conclude and enforce a collective agreement, together with measures undoing the agreement’s effects, violated Article 11 because the restriction was disproportionate and unsupported by sufficiently weighty reasons, and Article 11’s scope is informed by modern international labor standards and European practice.


Demir & Baykara v. Turk., App. No. 34503/97 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Nov. 12, 2008) (Grand Chamber)