Published on 17 February 2025
 
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 8412/23
Reka KISS
against Hungary
lodged on 31 January 2023
communicated on 29 January 2025
 
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant is a teacher in a school in Budapest. On 31 January 2022, as a member of the strike committee, she participated in the organisation of a national strike of teachers. On 2 October 2022 she managed the civil disobedience action scheduled for the first two hours of the school day. Subsequently she was the organiser of six other strikes, two civil disobedience actions, and a solidarity campaign.
On 10 February 2022 the Government adopted Government Decree no. 36/2022 (II.11) defining the scope of essential services in public education institutions during the “state of danger”.
On 6 May 2022 Parliament adopted Act no. V of 2022 on regulatory issues related to the termination of the state of danger, which entered into force on 1 June 2022. Sections 14 and 15 of the Act defined the scope of minimum services in public education in accordance with Government Decree no. 36/2022 (II.11). Since under the terms of Act no. V of 2022 the minimum services to be maintained during strikes in the educational sector entailed full working hours, teachers engaged in civil disobedience actions as a protest against the legislation. In total, 2018 teachers participated in such actions, including the applicant. Fourteen teachers have been dismissed from employment and another thirty-one received disciplinary sanctions for their participation.
On 11 July 2022 Members of Parliament sought the ex-post norm control of sections 14 and 15 of Act no. V of 2022. The request was dismissed on 29 November 2022 by the Constitutional Court.
On 1 September 2022 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint, challenging the constitutionality of sections 14 and 15 of Act no. V of 2022. Her constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible on 14 February 2023.
The applicant complains under Articles 11 and 18 of the Convention that Act no. V of 2022 constitutes an interference with her right to strike, without a legitimate aim and in a disproportionate manner, and for purposes not prescribed by the Convention.
 
 
 
 
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1.  Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to strike as protected by Article 11 of the Convention (see National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers v. the United Kingdom, no. 31045/10, 8 April 2014)? In particular, did Act no. V of 2022 constitute an interference with the applicant’s freedom of association, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention?
 
If so, was the interference “necessary in a democratic society” in terms of Article 11 § 2 in pursuit of a legitimate aim?
 
2.  Was the restriction imposed by the State on the applicant, purportedly pursuant to Article 11 of the Convention, applied for purposes other than those envisaged by this provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention (see Miroslava Todorova v. Bulgaria, no. 40072/13, §§ 191-202, 19 October 2021?