This article provides a comparative analysis of France, Belgium, Italy, and Spain demonstrating that in each of these countries the notion of unlawful strikes is fairly restricted. Whether considered from the point of view of the definition, the action taken, or its objectives, the probability of a strike being declared unlawful is not high, either due to the absence of detailed legislative rules, as in the case of France, Belgium, and Italy, or because of a fairly permissive constitutional interpretation of the existing rules, as in the case of Spain. As a result, if we turn our attention to the 'remedial' aspect of the four national systems under examination, we find a widespread perception according to which unlawful strikes do not play a key role in the overall scenario of collective action. More specifically, even though the principle that any tort must have its remedy is certainly not disputed in the countries concerned, it remains evident that, unlike what has happened in the Swedish follow-up to Laval, civil liability for damages does not play a key role in the current debate.