Information Note on the Court’s case-law 23

October 2000

Kajanen and Tuomaala v. Finland (dec.) - 36401/97

Decision 19.10.2000 [Section IV]

Article 11

Article 11-1

Freedom of association

Individuals unable to bring action in labour courts due to non-membership of trade union: inadmissible

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Civil rights and obligations

Dispute relating to the salaries of Court of Appeal judg es: Article 6 inapplicable

The applicants, who are Court of Appeal judges, contended that they were entitled to the salary of a higher grade. Following the refusal of the Court of Appeal’s secretary to upgrade their salary, the applicants lodged an appeal with the Supreme Administra tive Court, which considered that the issue related to the interpretation of a collective bargaining contract and, therefore, that the court did not have jurisdiction to deal with it. The applicants filed a complaint against the State with the Labour Court . The Labour Court stated that civil servants bound by a collective bargaining contract on civil servants’ salaries were allowed to take legal action before the Labour Court. However, the court found that the applicants could not do so as they did not belo ng to the negotiating trade union and, therefore, were not bound by the contract.

Inadmissible under 6 § 1: Employment disputes raised by employees in the public sector, participating directly in the exercise of powers conferred by public law and the perfo rmance of duties designed to safeguard the general interests of the State, fall outside the scope of applicability of Article 6 of the Convention. Accordingly, Article 6 is not applicable: incompatible ratione materiae .

Inadmissible under Article 11: This provision protects the right not to join or be a member of an association. However, the applicants were at no stage forced to join a trade union. Their non-membership of the trade union involved in the collective bargaining prevented them, for a certain pe riod, from having their dispute examined by a court. However, a recent decision of the Supreme Administrative Court changed this situation. Even if the applicants could still claim to be victims, there is no appearance of a violation: manifestly ill-founde d.

© 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