97 b) Law 25 refers to individuals, not to collective workers’ organisations, and the administrative sanctions that it imposes are not aimed against those who exercised legitimately the freedom of association, but against those who participated in the organisation, convocation or implementation of actions that attempted against democracy and the constitutional order; c) there is no evidence that proves that the 270 workers were dismissed from their positions for belonging to a trade union organisation; d) the right to strike is not a part of the right to associate. As a right of the workers, the strike may be called by them only subject to vote at the general assembly; and e) the collective work stoppage was a “savage stoppage” or “militant stoppage,” outside the bounds of the law. This type of work stoppage is a justified cause for dismissal, since it lies on the margin of legallity, and since it implies the abandonment or interruption of the work by the worker. The stoppage may not be legally qualified as merely an unjustified absence on a working day. * * * Considerations of the Court 153. Article 16 of the Convention points out that: 1. Everyone has the right to associate freely for ideological, religious, political, economic, labor, social, cultural, sports, or other purposes. 2. The exercise of this right shall be subject only to such restrictions established by law as may be necessary in a democratic society, in the interest of national security, public safety or public order, or to protect public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others. 3. The provisions of this article do not bar the imposition of legal restrictions, including even deprivation of the exercise of the right of association, on members of the armed forces and the police. 154. In the instant case, the State permanently maintained that freedom of association was never hampered, and that, on the occasion of the December 5, 1990, work stoppage, the measures adopted were taken because the stoppage attempted against democracy and the constitutional order. In any event, it is up to the Court to analyse whether or not freedom of association was violated by the State. 155.In the first place, it must be reiterated that Article 1 of Law 25 stipulated that: In order to preserve the constitutional order, authorisation is hereby granted to the Executive Branch and to the directors of autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions, State enterprises, municipal enterprises, and other public entities of the State to declare non subsistent the appointments of those public servants who took part and who may take part in the organisation, convocation or implementation of actions that attempt against democracy and the constitutional order, whether or not they hold positions on