CONTROL HUNGARIAN AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS' TRADE UNION AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

Published on 7 April 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 25635/23 CONTROL Hungarian Air Traffic Controllers’ Trade Union and Others against Hungary lodged on 12 May 2023 communicated on 18 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the allegedly disproportionate restrictions of the right to strike and the right of access to a court of air traffic controllers and of their trade union. The first applicant, CONTROL Hungarian Air Traffic Controllers’ Trade Union (Control Magyar Légiforgalmi Irányítók Szakszervezete, hereinafter “the applicant trade union”) represents employees of the HungaroControl Private Limited Company (hereinafter “HungaroControl”), the Hungarian air navigation service provider founded by the Hungarian State. The other applicants are members of the applicant trade union. On 28 May 2021 the applicant trade union initiated collective bargaining with HungaroControl as previous negotiations concerning working conditions, renumeration and free time had not led to any result and as the employer allegedly had not fulfilled its previous engagements in these matters. The applicant trade union foresaw an indefinite strike as of 15 July 2021. On 6 July 2021, following a request from the applicant trade union, the Budapest High Court ruled that the planned strike was lawful and defined the scope of minimum services during strike days. The decision was upheld on appeal by the Budapest Court of Appeal on 20 July 2021. On 26 July 2021 the Government published Government Decree no. 446/2021 (VII.26) banning strikes at essential air navigation service providers due to the Covid pandemic. HungaroControl withdrew from the collective bargaining and revoked its previous offer on wage developments. Members of the applicant trade union filed a constitutional complaint against the Government Decree on 11 October 2021, which was dismissed on 8 February 2022. On 1 June 2022 Government Decree no. 446/2021 (VII.26) expired. However, meanwhile Parliament had adopted Act no. CXXXVI of 2021 amending Act no. XCVII of 1995 on aviation, defining the scope of essential services for HungaroControl employees in case of strike. The applicants filed two separate constitutional complaints seeking the annulment of the amendments to Act no. XCVII of 1995 on the grounds that the scope of essential services was disproportionately broad, making any strike action impossible in practice. The Constitutional Court dismissed the complaints by decisions of 22 December 2022 (served on the applicants on 31 January 2023) and 31 January 2023 (served on the applicants on 16 February 2023) respectively, essentially with the same reasoning. The applicants complain that they have been deprived of their right of access to a court as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention They argue that by defining the content of essential services, the amendment to Act no. XCVII of 1995 overruled the previous judicial decisions, depriving them of the right to seek a court ruling on the matter. In addition, the applicants complain that the amendment to Act no. XCVII, by defining the content of minimum services in a disproportionately broad manner, deprives them of the substance of their right to strike, as protected by Article 11 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.  Has there been a breach of the applicants’ right of access to a court as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention by the enactment of Act no. CXXXVI of 2021 (see Zafferani and Others v. San Marino, nos. 38127/22 and 6 others, §§ 46-48, 9 January 2025)? In particular, was the restriction of access to court justified and proportionate to any legitimate aim pursued?   2.  Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to strike as protected by Article 11 of the Convention (see Humpert and Others v. Germany [GC], nos. 59433/18 and 3 others, §§ 98-112, 14 December 2023, and National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers v. the United Kingdom, no. 31045/10, §§ 84-104, 8 April 2014)? (a)  In particular, did Act no. CXXXVI of 2021 constitute an interference with the applicants’ freedom of association, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention? (b)  If so, was that interference lawful and necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2?       APPENDIX List of applicants No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Place of residence/seat 1. CONTROL HUNGARIAN AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS’ TRADE UNION 2006 Budapest 2. Ferenc HEGYI 1991 Győr 3. Ákos András KOVÁCS 1980 Pilisborosjenő 4. Máté LAKATOS 1990 Budapest 5. János LAKATOS 1964 Budapest 6. Dániel András MELKVI 1976 Perbál 7. Balázs Adrián PÁL 1987 Budapest 8. Ádám SZÉKELY 1985 Leányfalu 9. Gábor TÓTH 1980 Budapest