Police failed to protect participants in march against homophobia from violent attacks of counter-demonstrators

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Identoba and Others v. Georgia (application no. 73235/12) the European Court of Human Rights held:

by a majority, that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) taken in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and

unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) in conjunction with Article 14.

The case concerned a peaceful demonstration in Tbilisi in May 2012 to mark the International Day against Homophobia, which was violently disrupted by counter-demonstrators outnumbering the marchers.

The Court considered in particular that the authorities knew or ought to have known of the risks surrounding the demonstration. They had therefore been under an obligation – but had failed – to provide adequate protection so that it could be held peacefully.

The ban on strike action imposed on a police trade union did not infringe its freedom of association

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Junta Rectora Del Ertzainen Nazional Elkartasuna (ER.N.E.) v. Spain (application no. 45892/09), the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

No violation of Article 11 (freedom of association) of the European Convention on Human Rights, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

The case concerned the inability of the members of a police officers’ trade union to exercise the right to strike.

The Court found in particular that the more stringent requirements imposed on “law-enforcement agents”, on account of the fact that they were armed and of the need for them to provide an uninterrupted service, justified the ban on strike action in so far as public safety and the prevention of disorder were at stake.

The Court noted that the specific nature of these agents’ duties warranted granting the State a lot of room for manoeuvre (“a wide margin of appreciation”) to regulate certain aspects of the trade union’s activities in the public interest, without however depriving the union of the core content of its rights under Article 11.

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of İsmail Sezer v. Turkey (application no. 36807/07) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and

a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy)

The case concerned a disciplinary measure taken against a teacher, who held office in a union, for taking part in a panel discussion organised by a political party.

The Court found in particular that the reprimand imposed on Mr Sezer constituted a disproportionate restriction of his freedom of association as guaranteed by Article 11. The Court took account of the discretion shown by Mr Sezer during the panel discussion, his capacity as union officer on that occasion and the potentially chilling effect of such a sanction on the participation of other union members in events to defend their members’ interests.

The Court also found that the only remedy open to Mr Sezer to dispute the lawfulness of the sanction, namely an administrative appeal to a higher authority, had not constituted an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 13.