Lisbon, 24 Apr 2024 (Lusa) -- The Lisbon Court of Appeal today ruled in favour of the Union of Judicial Officers (SFJ) by considering that the ongoing indefinite strike should not have minimum services, as the Directorate-General for Justice Administration (DGAJ) intended.

The strike in question in this ruling is still ongoing and was called by the SFJ for judicial officers working in Judicial Secretariats and Public Prosecutor's Offices, between 00:00 and 09:00; 12:30 and 13:30 and 17:00 and 24:00, every day, starting on 8 January 2024.

According to the ruling to which Lusa had access, the higher court ruled in favour of the SFJ in the appeal against the decision of the arbitration board that had decreed minimum services for the period between 17:00 and 24:00, that is, a period in which judicial officers would be working overtime, outside their normal working hours.

According to the Lisbon Court of Appeal (TRL), "it is not justified that, under the pretext of the strike by judicial officers against overtime on working days, an attempt is made to impose a system of operation of the courts that is not imposed in normal times / times of social peace", that is, that "an attempt is made to impose a kind of shift system, on working days, after the afternoon part of the courts' operating hours / working hours of judicial officers (which ends at 17:00 on each working day or at 18:00 in the case of elections)".

The allegation that urgent matters are at stake "does not mean that the respective acts are unpostponable / cannot be continued on another day", argues the TRL.

The panel of judges argues that if on normal working days, without a strike being called, the acts carried out in the courts and public prosecutor's offices can be interrupted and resumed at 09:00 the following day, there is nothing to prevent the same from happening in strike situations, "all the more so", "under penalty of there being a partial and unjustified annihilation of the effectiveness of the strike, emptying it of its purpose".

"Therefore, analysing the specific case with attention, rationality and consideration, we find that the existence of the decreed strike against overtime, on working days, by judicial officers of the judicial secretariats and the Public Prosecutor's Office, does not justify the establishment of compulsory minimum services between 17:00 and 24:00 on each working day, for the alleged continuation of acts already initiated (either by a bailiff or by a magistrate) before that time of closing of the secretariat", reads the ruling.

The decision also rejects the DGAJ's claims to have minimum services decreed for the period of the judicial officers' lunch break, between 12:30 and 13:30.

The court points out that the right to a lunch break is a satisfaction of a basic need of workers, that of daily food, and therefore argues that "the satisfaction of all basic needs is incompatible with the DGAJ's claim to impose on them an uninterrupted daily working day, on a working day, continuous between 09:00 and 24:00 on the same day, under the pretext that there is a strike situation decreed by them, precisely against overtime on working days".

The ruling also argues that it is not justified to restrict the right to strike when it does not jeopardise compliance with the 48-hour deadline for depriving defendants of their liberty until they are subject to their first judicial interrogation.

The TRL reiterates that imposing an uninterrupted working day would jeopardise the "effectiveness of the exercise of the right to strike" and "would constitute an excessive, disproportionate and unjustified violation / annulment of the right to strike of these judicial officers who are adhering to this strike".

Leia Também: Ausência de serviços mínimos é "incompetência pura" da tutela (Portuguese version)