This article discusses the significance of the landmark ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the Humpert and Others v. Germany (ECtHR, Humpert and Others v. Germany, App. No. 59433/18, 59477/18, 59481/18 and 59494/18, 14 December 2023.) case and its implications on the right to strike. It is argued that the outcome of the Humpert judgment stemmed from the interaction of two problematic issues; first, the Court was mainly reliant on the government’s argument that the rights and instruments of civil servants’ trade unions and civil servants themselves are sufficient for occupational interests to be defended, and that the working conditions of civil servants are better than in other countries. This is a result of the Court’s failure to apply the integrated approach. Furthermore, the Court perpetuated the flawed distinction between essential and non-essential aspects, as well as between core and secondary aspects, of Article 11. This flawed division and subsequent argument led to the misapplication of the margin of appreciation doctrine, which could justify an absolute ban on the right to strike. Disappointingly, the Court relied on the justifications discussed above that appear to be unprecedented in its case law on the right to strike. This could lead to similar justifications being used in countries where the right to strike is banned or severely restricted.
International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations