445_53 interference 53. <16> The parts of the judgments of the Court of Cassation relevant to the present case read as follows: “It must be noted that the action was conducted on vacant land owned by a third party and located approximately 500 metres from the workplace to protest against the signing of the latest collective agreement for three years and that agreement’s failure to meet the [employees’] demands. At the time of the action, there had been no authorisation process and the collective agreement had been signed approximately ... months earlier.