The Right to Strike under the European Court of Human Rights

Table of Contents

1. The European Court of Human Rights and the Interpretation of Article 11 ECHR: The Court’s Initial Reluctance

1.1. The Court’s 'Restrictive' approach towards the Interpretation of Article 11 ECHR

2. The Case of Demir and Baykara v. Turkey: The 'U-Turn' in the Court’s Jurisprudence

2.1 The Implications of the Judgment in Demir and Baykara v. Turkey on the Right to Strike

3. The Case of RMT v. United Kingdom: The 'Hangover' of the European Court of Human Rights?

4. The Importance of the Right to Strike as a Human Right and its Future Protection under the ECHR: An Enhanced or a Superficial Protection?

4.1. The current developments and the increasing ‘‘hostility’’ towards labour rights: The ECtHR as the guardian of the right to strike?

Objectives and Research Themes

This paper examines the legal protection afforded to the right to strike under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It investigates whether the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) provides an adequate framework for safeguarding this right, particularly in light of shifting judicial interpretations and external political pressures.

• The historical evolution of the ECtHR's interpretation of Article 11 ECHR.
• The impact of landmark rulings like Demir and Baykara v. Turkey.
• The critical analysis of the RMT v. United Kingdom decision and its implications.
• The intersection of labour rights and human rights within the context of European austerity policies.

Excerpt from the Book

Summary of Chapters

1. The European Court of Human Rights and the Interpretation of Article 11 ECHR: The Court’s Initial Reluctance: This chapter analyzes the historical, restrictive interpretation by the ECtHR regarding the inclusion of the right to strike within Article 11.

1.1. The Court’s 'Restrictive' approach towards the Interpretation of Article 11 ECHR: This section details the Court’s early tendency to view the ECHR purely as an instrument for civil and political rights, excluding socio-economic entitlements.

2. The Case of Demir and Baykara v. Turkey: The 'U-Turn' in the Court’s Jurisprudence: This chapter highlights the landmark shift where the ECtHR began recognizing collective bargaining and the right to strike as inherent features of Article 11.

2.1 The Implications of the Judgment in Demir and Baykara v. Turkey on the Right to Strike: This section evaluates how the 'evolutive' interpretation established in this case paved the way for broader labor rights protection.

3. The Case of RMT v. United Kingdom: The 'Hangover' of the European Court of Human Rights?: This chapter critically examines the RMT decision, which is argued to have retreated from the optimistic stance previously established.

4. The Importance of the Right to Strike as a Human Right and its Future Protection under the ECHR: An Enhanced or a Superficial Protection?: This chapter explores the theoretical importance of the right to strike as a fundamental human right necessary to preserve democratic working conditions.

4.1. The current developments and the increasing ‘‘hostility’’ towards labour rights: The ECtHR as the guardian of the right to strike?: This section discusses the challenges posed by austerity and economic policies to the ongoing protection of labor rights.

Keywords

European Convention on Human Rights, Article 11 ECHR, Right to Strike, Collective Bargaining, Demir and Baykara, RMT v. United Kingdom, Labour Rights, Human Rights, Strasbourg Court, Jurisprudence, Evolutive Interpretation, Trade Unions, Austerity, Solidarity Action, Industrial Relations.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the primary objective of this work?

The work aims to systematically analyze the degree of protection for the right to strike under Article 11 of the ECHR, assessing the transition from judicial reluctance to a more engaged "evolutive" interpretation.

What are the central thematic fields covered?

The paper covers human rights law, labour law, international legal standards, and the judicial philosophy of the European Court of Human Rights.

What is the core research question?

The study asks whether the ECtHR effectively safeguards the right to strike or if recent rulings, such as the RMT case, demonstrate a retreat into a superficial level of protection.

Which scientific methods are employed?

The paper employs a legal-analytical method, examining case-law, international instruments, and scholarly debate regarding the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

What is covered in the main body of the work?

The body analyzes the Court's development through distinct phases: initial reluctance, the "U-turn" marked by the Demir and Baykara case, and the recent "hangover" period signaled by the RMT case.

Which keywords best characterize this study?

Key terms include ECHR, Right to Strike, Article 11, Collective Bargaining, Judicial Activism, and Labour Rights protection.

Why does the author use the term 'hangover' regarding the RMT case?

The term suggests that in the RMT judgment, the Court seemed to "forget" or contradict its earlier promising jurisprudence on labor rights, much like a person experiencing a memory lapse.

How does the author view the influence of austerity policies on the right to strike?

The author argues that austerity measures create a hostile political environment that jeopardizes the effective exercise of labor rights and pressures the ECtHR to potentially moderate its support for collective action.