CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 10 janvier 1995

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                        EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                          Application No. 15573/89                              Torgny Gustafsson                                   against                                   Sweden                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                        (adopted on 10 January 1995)                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page   I.     INTRODUCTION       (paras. 1-17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         A.    The application            (paras. 2-4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         B.    The proceedings            (paras. 5-12). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         C.    The present Report            (paras. 13-17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS       (paras. 18-52). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4         A.    The particular circumstances of the case            (paras. 18-39) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4         B.    Relevant domestic law            (paras. 40-52) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8              1.     Freedom of association                  (paras. 40-44) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8              2.     Right of association                  (paras. 45-47) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10              3.     Access to court                  (paras. 48-49) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11              4.     Judicial review                  (paras. 50-51) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12              5.     Protection of the right of re-employment                  (para. 52) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION       (paras. 53-108) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13         A.    Complaints declared admissible            (para. 53) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13         B.    Points at issue            (paras. 54). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13         C.    As regards Article 11 of the Convention            in conjunction with Article 17            (paras. 55-83) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13              CONCLUSION            (para. 84) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page         D.    As regards Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in            conjunction with Article 17 of the Convention            (paras. 85-89) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19              CONCLUSION            (para. 90) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20         E.    As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention            (paras. 91-96) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20              CONCLUSION            (para. 97) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21         F.    As regards Article 13 of the Convention            (paras. 98-103). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21              CONCLUSION            (para. 104). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22         G.    Recapitulation            (paras. 105-108) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22   PARTLY DISSENTING OPINON OF Mr. G. JÖRUNDSSON . . . . . . . . . . .23   PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MM. TRECHSEL AND BRATZA. . . . . . . .24   PARTLY DISSENTING AND PARTLY CONCURRING OPINION OF Mrs. J. LIDDY, JOINED BY Mr. I. CABRAL BARRETO . . . . . . . . .25     PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF Mr. B. CONFORTI. . . . . . . . . . . .28   APPENDIX I    : HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . .29   APPENDIX II   : DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE                ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . . . . . . .30   I.     INTRODUCTION   1.     The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.     The application   2.     The applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1947 and resident at Tingstäde. He was represented before the Commission by Mr. Göran Ravnsborg, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Lund.   3.     The application is directed against Sweden. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. Carl-Henrik Ehrenkrona, Assistant Under-Secretary for Legal Affairs, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Stockholm.   4.     The case concerns lack of State protection against industrial actions against the applicant's business establishment allegedly violating both his negative freedom of association and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. The applicant further complains that he was unable effectively to challenge the industrial actions before a tribunal and that no other effective remedy was at his disposal either. He invokes Article 11 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, both in conjunction with Article 17 of the Convention, as well as Article 6 para. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.   B.     The proceedings   5.     The application was introduced on 1 July 1989 and registered on 4 October 1989. At the applicant's request its examination was suspended until July 1992.   6.     On 14 October 1992 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.   7.     The Government's observations were submitted on 1 April 1993 after three extensions of the time-limit fixed for this purpose. The applicant replied on 23 June 1993. Additional observations were submitted by the Government on 30 August 1993. On 5 July 1993 the Commission granted the applicant legal aid for the representation of his case.   8.     On 11 January 1994 the application was referred to the plenary Commission under Article 20 para. 4 of the Convention.   9.     On 17 January 1994 the Commission decided to hold a hearing of the parties. The hearing was held on 8 April 1994. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. Carl Henrik Ehrenkrona, Mrs. Catharina Staaf, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Justice, and Mrs. Inga Åkerlund, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Labour. The applicant was represented by his counsel, Mr. Göran Ravnsborg, and also attended the hearing himself.   10.    On 8 April 1994 the Commission declared the application admissible.   11.    The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 22 April 1994 and they were invited to submit further observations on the merits. The applicant submitted observations on 1 June 1994 and the Government on 2 June 1994.   12.    After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement. In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.     The present Report   13.    The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present :              MM.    C.L. ROZAKIS, Acting President                  H. DANELIUS                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  S. TRECHSEL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  J.-C. SOYER            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  E. KONSTANTINOV              Mr.    H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission   14.    The text of this Report was adopted on 10 January 1995 by the Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   15.    The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is :         (i)   to establish the facts, and         (ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose            a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under            the Convention.   16.    A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application as Appendix II.   17.    The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.     The particular circumstances of the case   18.    As from the summer of 1987 up to and including the summer of 1990 the applicant owned the summer restaurant "Ihrebaden" at Ihreviken, Tingstäde, on the island of Gotland. The applicant further owned - and continues to own - the youth hostel "Lummelunda" at Nyhamn, Visby, also on Gotland. The restaurant had hired employees amounting to less than ten. These were engaged on a seasonal basis, but had the option of being re-employed. The applicant's ownership of the restaurant and youth hostel was direct and entailed his personal financial responsibility (enskild firma).   19.    The applicant was not a member of either of the two associations of restaurant employers, namely the Swedish Hotel and Restaurant Entrepreneurs' Association (previously the Hotel and Restaurant Employers' Association; Sveriges Hotell- och Restaurangföretagare (f.d. Hotell- och Restaurangarbetsgivareföreningen); hereinafter-"HRAF") or   the Employers' Association of the Swedish Association of Restaurant Owners (Svenska Restauratörsförbundets Arbetsgivareförening; hereinafter "SRA"). HRAF is associated with the Swedish Employers' Confederation (Svenska Arbetsgivareföreningen; hereinafter "SAF"), while SRA is not.   20.    As a result of his non-membership the applicant was not bound by any collective labour agreement (kollektivavtal) which HRAF and SRA had concluded with the Hotel and Restaurant Workers' Union (Hotell- och Restauranganställdas Förbund; hereinafter "HRF"), respectively. He also refused, in 1987, to sign a separate, so-called substitute agreement (hängavtal) with HRF to the effect that a collective agreement should apply. He referred to his objections of principle against the system of collective bargaining. He also emphasised that his employees were paid more than a collective agreement would have provided for them and that they themselves objected to the signing of a substitute agreement on their behalf.   21.    The substitute agreement proposed to the applicant was worded as follows:         (translation)         "Parties: [The applicant] and [HRF]         Term of validity: From 1 July 1987 up to and including       31 December 1988, thereafter for one year at a time, unless       notice is given two months prior to the expiry of the       [agreement].       ...       As from the [above] date, the most recent agreement between       [the employers' association] and [HRF] shall be applied       between [the applicant and HRF]. Should [the employers'       association] and [HRF] subsequently reach a new agreement       or agree to amend or supplement the [present] agreement,       [the new agreement, amendments or supplements] shall       automatically apply as from the day on which [it or they]       [has or have] been [agreed upon].       ...         1.    [The employer shall] [on his employees' behalf]       subscribe to and maintain [five different] insurances in       'Labour Market Insurances' ('Arbetsmarknadsförsäkring'),...       as well as other possible insurances which [the employers'       association and HRF] might later agree upon.         2.    [The employer shall] issue employment certificates on       a special form... A copy shall be sent to [HRF].         3.    [The employer shall] only employ [workers who are       members] of or [have] requested membership of [HRF]. In       case of re-employment the provisions of Section 25 of the       Employment Protection Act (lag 1982:80 om anställnings-       skydd) shall be applied.         4.    [The employer shall] on a monthly basis deduct a part       of the salary of employed members of [HRF] which       corresponds to their membership fees, and pay [the deducted       part] to [HRF].       ..."   22.    On 16 July 1987 the applicant met a representative of HRF. Following the negotiations HRF proposed the following substitute agreement which was, however, not signed by the applicant:         (translation)         "Subject: The signing of a collective agreement regarding       [the restaurant] Ihrebaden ... and the Lummelunda youth       hostel.         1.    Having regard to the forthcoming end of the [season of       1987] the parties agree on the following procedure       replacing the signing of a collective agreement.         The enterprise agrees to comply, during this season...,       with the collective labour agreement ('the green national       agreement') between [HRAF] and [HRF], this including the       obligation to subscribe to [certain] insurances       (avtalsförsäkringar) in 'Labour Market Insurances'.         2.    The enterprise also agrees to [comply with] [the]       collective labour agreement ... during the next season...,       either by way of membership in the employers' union or by       signing a ... substitute agreement..."   23.    The "Labour Market Insurances" referred to in the substitute agreements proposed to the applicant consist of a number of different insurances developed through agreements between SAF and the Swedish Trade Union Confederation (Landsorganisationen; hereinafter "LO"). The collective health insurance is administered by "AMF Sjukförsäkring", a limited liability company equally owned by SAF and LO. The industrial injuries insurance is handled jointly by SAF, LO, the Federation of Salaried Employees in Industry and Services (Privattjänstemanna- kartellen) and three insurance companies. The severance payment and collective life insurances are administered by "AFA Arbetsmarknadens Försäkringsaktiebolag", a limited liability company equally owned by SAF and LO. Finally, the special additional pension insurance is handled by "AMF Pension", another limited liability company equally owned by SAF and LO.   24.    An employer bound by a collective agreement must insure his employees in "Labour Market Insurances". An employer not bound by such an agreement may choose to subscribe to insurances in "Labour Market Insurances", but may also choose another company out of the roughly ten insurance companies in the field.   25.    Following the applicant's refusal to sign a substitute agreement, HRF, in July 1987, placed his restaurant under a blockade and declared a boycott against it. Sympathy measures were taken the same month by the Commercial Employees' Union (Handelsanställdas Förbund) and the Swedish Food Workers' Union (Svenska Livsmedelsarbetareförbundet).   26.    In the summer of 1988 sympathy measures were also taken by the Swedish Transport Workers' Union (Svenska transportarbetareförbundet) and the Union of Municipal Employees (Kommunalarbetareförbundet). As a result the deliveries to the restaurant were stopped.   27.    In the summers of 1987 and 1988 one of the employees at "Ihrebaden" was a member of HRF. She publicly expressed the opinion that the industrial actions were unnecessary, as the salary and working conditions could not be criticised.   28.    In August 1988 the applicant, invoking the Convention, requested that the Government prohibit HRF from continuing the blockade and the other trade unions from continuing their sympathy measures.   He further requested that the Government order the unions to pay damages, alternatively that damages be paid by the State.   29.    In its decision of 12 January 1989 the Government (Ministry of Justice) stated the following:         (translation)         "The requests for a prohibition of the blockade and the       sympathy measures as well as damage liability of the trade       unions, concern a legal dispute between private subjects.       According to Chapter 11, Article 3 of the Instrument of       Government (Regeringsformen), such disputes may not be       determined by any other public authority than a court of       law, except by virtue of law. There is no provision in the       law which authorises the Government to examine such       disputes. The Government, therefore, will not examine these       requests on the merits.         The claim for damages is dismissed."   30.    The applicant asked for judicial review of the decision in accordance with the 1988 Act on Judicial Review of Certain Administrative Decisions (lag 1988:205 om rättsprövning av vissa förvaltningsbeslut).   31.    On 29 June 1989 the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) dismissed the request, finding that the Government's dismissal and rejection of the claims was not a decision in an administrative matter involving the exercise of public power.   32.    On 15 September 1989 the Swedish Touring Club (Svenska turistföreningen; hereinafter "STF") terminated the contract with the applicant's youth hostel, referring to co-operation difficulties and the applicant's negative attitude towards STF. STF is a non-profit association aimed at promoting tourism in Sweden and improving the general knowledge about the country. In 1989 about 280 youth hostels were enrolled in STF, while roughly as many were not. The exclusion entailed, inter alia, that the hostel was no longer mentioned in STF's catalogue of youth hostels in Sweden.   33.    The applicant brought proceedings before the District Court (tingsrätten) of Stockholm. He contested the grounds for what he considered as his personal exclusion from STF, alleging that it had resulted from HRF's threats to institute industrial actions against other youth hostels enrolled in STF, unless his hostel was excluded. He also contested the grounds for STF's termination of the contract concerning his youth hostel.   34.    STF argued, inter alia, that, although the termination of the membership contract concerning the applicant's youth hostel had not been based on the conflict between the applicant and the trade unions, this conflict might have affected the timing of the termination. Reference was furthermore made to a finding of the Competition Ombudsman (ombudsmannen för näringsfrihet) of 14 November 1989 that the termination of the contract concerning the applicant's youth hostel would only to a very limited extent render his business activity more difficult.   35.    By judgment of 8 May 1991 the District Court rejected the applicant's action on both points. It found, inter alia, that the applicant had not shown that he had been personally excluded from STF by virtue of the termination of STF's contract concerning his youth hostel. It also found that he had not shown that the contract had been financially significant to his business. Reference was made to the finding of the Competition Ombudsman.   36.    By judgment of 6 March 1992 the Svea Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt) upheld the District Court's judgment. It found, inter alia, that STF's termination of the contract concerning the youth hostel had entailed the expiry of the applicant's personal membership of STF. This, however, had not been tantamount to his exclusion, given that he could have retained or renewed his membership. Moreover, although the contract had been of significant importance to the applicant's business, STF's termination of the contract could not be considered unreasonable.   37.    In the beginning of 1991 the applicant sold his restaurant due to his difficulties in running his business which had allegedly been caused by the industrial actions.   38.    On 9 November 1991 the applicant requested the Government to support his application before the Commission.   39.    On 12 December 1991 the Government decided not to take any measures in respect of the request.   B.     Relevant domestic law         1.    Freedom of association   40.    Chapter 2, Section 1 of the Instrument of Government provides as follows:         (Swedish)         "Varje medborgare är gentemot det allmänna tillförsäkrad         1.    yttrandefrihet: frihet att i tal, skrift eller bild       eller på annat sätt meddela upplysningar samt uttrycka       tankar, åsikter och känslor;       ...       5.    föreningsfrihet: frihet att sammansluta sig med andra       för allmänna eller enskilda syften; ..."         (translation)         "All citizens shall be guaranteed the following in their       relations with the public administration:         1.    freedom of expression: the freedom to communicate       information and to express ideas, opinions and emotions       whether orally, in writing, in pictorial representations,       or in any other way;       ...       5.    freedom of association: the freedom to unite with       others for public or private purposes; ..."   41.    Chapter 2, Section 2 provides as follows:         (Swedish)         "Varje medborgare är gentemot det allmänna skyddad mot       tvång att giva till känna sin åskådning i politiskt,       religiöst, kulturellt eller annat sådan hänseende. Han är       därjämte gentemot det allmänna skyddad mot tvång att       deltaga i sammankomst för opinionsbildning eller i       demonstration eller annan meningsyttring eller att tillhöra       politisk sammanslutning, trossamfund, eller annan       sammanslutning för åskådning som avses i första meningen."         (translation)         "All citizens shall be protected in their relations with       the public administration against all coercion to divulge       an opinion in any political, religious, cultural or other       similar connection. They shall furthermore be protected in       their relations with the public administration against all       coercion to participate in any meeting for the formation of       opinion or in any demonstration or other expression of       opinion or to belong to any political association,       religious congregation or other association for opinions of       the nature referred to in the first sentence."   42.    Chapter 2, Section 12, subsections 1 and 2 provide as follows:         (Swedish)         "De fri- och rättigheter som avses i 1 § 1-5 ... får, i den       utsträckning som 13-16 §§ medgiver, begränsas genom lag.       ...       Begränsning som avses i första stycket får göras enbart för       att tillgodose ändamål som är godtagbart i ett demokratiskt       samhälle. Begränsningen får aldrig gå utöver vad som är       nödvändigt med hänsyn till det ändamål som föranlett den       och ej heller sträcka sig så långt att den utgör ett hot       mot den fria åsiktsbildningen såsom en av folkstyrelsens       grundvalar. Begränsning får ej göras enbart på grund av       politisk, religiös, kulturell eller annan sådan       åskådning."         (translation)         "The freedoms and rights referred to in Section 1,       paras. 1-5 ... may be restricted by law to the extent       provided for in Sections 13-16. ...         The restrictions referred to in the preceding subsection       may only be imposed   to achieve a purpose which is       acceptable in a democratic society. The restriction may       never exceed what is necessary having regard to the purpose       which occasioned it, nor may it be carried so far as to       constitute a threat to the free formation of opinion as one       of the foundations of democracy. No restriction may be       imposed solely on grounds of political, religious, cultural       or other such opinions."   43.    Chapter 2, Section 14, subsection 2 provides as follows:         (Swedish)         "Föreningsfriheten får begränsas såvitt gäller       sammanslutningar vilkas verksamhet är av militär eller       liknande natur eller innebär förföljelse av folkgrupp av       viss ras, med viss hudfärg eller av visst etniskt       ursprung."         (translation)         "Freedom of association may only be restricted in respect       of organisations whose activities are of a military nature       or the like or which involve the persecution of a       population group of a particular race, skin colour or       ethnic origin."   44.    Chapter 2, Section 17 provides as follows:         (Swedish)         "Förening av arbetstagare samt arbetsgivare och förening av       arbetsgivare äger rätt att vidtaga fackliga stridsåtgärder,       om annat ej följer av lag eller avtal."         (translation)         "Any trade union or employer or association of employers       shall be entitled to take strike or lock-out action or any       similar measures unless otherwise provided by law or       arising out of an agreement."         2.    Right of association   45.    Section 7 of the 1976 Act on Co-Determination at Work (lag 1976:580 om medbestämmande i arbetslivet) provides as follows:         (Swedish)         "Med föreningsrätt avses rätt för arbetsgivare och       arbetstagare att tillhöra arbetsgivar- eller arbetstagar-       organisation, att utnyttja medlemskapet och att verka för       organisationen eller för att sådan bildas."         (translation)         "By right of association is meant a right of employers and       employees to belong to an organisation of employers or       employees, to take advantage of their membership as well as       to work for an organisation or for the founding of one."   46.    Section 8 provides as follows:         (Swedish)         "Föreningsrätten skall lämnas okränkt. Kränkning av       föreningsrätten föreligger, om någon på arbetsgivar- eller       arbetstagarsidan vidtager åtgärd till skada för någon på       andra sidan för att denne har utnyttjat sin föreningsrätt       eller om någon på ena sidan vidtager åtgärd mot någon på       andra sidan i syfte att förmå denne att icke utnyttja sin       föreningsrätt. Sådan kränkning föreligger även om åtgärden       vidtages för att åtagande mot annan skall uppfyllas.         Arbetsgivar- eller arbetstagarorganisation är icke skyldig       att tåla sådan kränkning av föreningsrätten som innebär       intrång i dess verksamhet. Finns både lokal och central       organisation, gäller vad som nu har sagts den centrala       organisationen.         Sker kränkning av föreningsrätten genom avtalsuppsägning       eller annan sådan rättshandling eller genom bestämmelse i       kollektivavtal eller annat avtal, är rättshandlingen eller       bestämmelsen ogiltig."         (translation)         "The right of association shall not be violated. A       violation ... will occur, if anyone on the side of the       employer or the employee takes any action to the detriment       of anybody on the other side by reason of that person       having exercised his right of association, or if anybody on       either side takes any action against anybody on the other       side with a view to inducing that person not to exercise       his right of association. A violation will occur even if       the action is taken in order for an obligation towards       another party to be fulfilled.         An organisation of employers or employees shall not have to       tolerate a violation of its right of association       encroaching upon its activities. Where there is both a       local and a central organisation, these provisions shall       apply to the central organisation.         If the right of association is violated by the termination       of an agreement or another legal act or by a provision in       a collective agreement or other contract, that act or       provision shall be void."   47.    Section 10 provides as follows:         (Swedish)         "Arbetstagarorganisation har rätt till förhandling med       arbetsgivare i fråga rörande förhållandet mellan       arbetsgivaren och sådan medlem i organisationen, som är       eller har varit arbetstagare hos arbetsgivaren.       Arbetsgivare har motsvarande rätt att förhandla med       arbetstagarorganisation.         Förhandlingsrätt ... tillkommer arbetstagarorganisationen       även i förhållande till organisation som arbetsgivaren       tillhör och arbetsgivarens organisation i förhållande till       arbetstagarorganisation."         (translation)         "An organisation of employees shall have the right to       negotiate with an employer regarding any matter relating to       the relationship between the employer and any member of the       organisation who is or has been employed by that employer.       An employer shall have a corresponding right to negotiate       with an organisation of employees.         A right of negotiation ... shall also be enjoyed by the       organisation of employees in relation to any organisation       to which an employer belongs, and by the employer's       organisation in relation to the organisation of employees."         3.    Access to court   48.    Chapter 11, Section 3 of the Instrument of Government provides as follows:         (Swedish)         "Rättstvist mellan enskilda får icke utan stöd av lag       avgöras av annan myndighet än domstol. ..."           (translation)         "Legal disputes between private subjects shall only be       settled by a court of law, unless otherwise provided by       law. ..."   49.    In principle, it is possible for an employer against whom industrial actions have been instituted to request a court injunction to the effect that the actions be ordered to cease, as well as to claim damages. Such a law suit must, however, be based on the fact that the industrial action is unlawful or in breach of an existing collective agreement. In order for a damage claim not based on such a breach to be successful it must, in accordance with Chapter 2, Section 4 of the 1972 Tort Liability Act (skadeståndslag 1972:207), be shown that the industrial action amounts to a criminal offence.         4.    Judicial review   50.    According to the 1988 Act on Judicial Review of Certain Administrative Decisions, a party to a case before the Government or an administrative authority concerning matters covered by Chapter 8, Sections 2 and 3 of the Instrument of Government may apply to the Supreme Administrative Court, which shall examine whether the decision in the case infringes any legal rule.   51.    Judicial review may be granted only in respect of decisions which involve the exercise of public power and which may otherwise not be brought before the courts except after application for a reopening of proceedings (resning) and in regard to which no other means of appeal would have been available.         5.    Protection of the right of re-employment   52.    Section 25 of the 1982 Employment Protection Act sets out the conditions under which a former employee shall have the right to be re-employed. These rules also apply to seasonal workers.   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.     Complaints declared admissible   53.    The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaints that the lack of State protection against the industrial actions taken against his business establishment violated his negative freedom of association as well as his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, and that the court and other remedies which he could resort to in order to challenge those actions would have been ineffective.   B.     Points at issue   54.    Accordingly, the issues to be determined are:         - whether there has been a violation of Article 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention on account of the lack of State protection against the industrial actions and whether any issue arises under Article 17 (Art. 17) of the Convention;         - whether there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention and whether any issue arises under Article 17 (Art. 17) of the Convention;         - whether there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention on account of the alleged absence of an effective court remedy against the industrial actions; and         - whether there has been a violation of Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention on account of the alleged absence of any other effective remedy against those actions.   C.     As regards Article 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention in conjunction       with Article 17 (Art. 17)   55.    Article 11 (Art. 11) reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:         "1.   Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly       and to freedom of association with others, including the       right to form and to join trade unions for the protection       of his interests.         2.    No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of       these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and       are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of       national security or public safety, for the prevention of       disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals       or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.       ..."   56.    Article 17 (Art. 17) reads as follows:         "Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying       for any State, group or person any right to engage in any       activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any       of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their       limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the       Convention."   57.    The applicant complains that the respondent State failed without justification to protect his establishment against the industrial actions taken by HRF and sympathising unions following his refusal to enrol in an employers' association or otherwise to comply with the collective agreement, as proposed by HRF. As a result of the State's failure he was eventually forced to sell his restaurant, thereby losing a material part of his livelihood.   58.    The applicant considers that the failure on the part of the State to provide protection against the industrial actions violated his negative freedom of association. This freedom must, in order to be effective, be considered as entailing a right for him to negotiate with his employees without any influence by a trade union such as HRF. He does not question HRF's general right to defend the interests of its members, but underlines that his employees in no way suffered from his lack of affiliation with an employers' association nor from the lack of affiliation with HRF on the part of all but one of the employees. He emphasises that all employees, including the only member of HRF at the work place, objected to the industrial actions.     59.    The applicant furthermore asserts that the respondent State could not absolve itself from its responsibility under Article 11 (Art. 11) by delegating measures related to collective bargaining to private bodies such as trade unions. The pressure to which he was subjected was a result of the Swedish legislation in this field and thus State responsibility is incurred. Moreover, under Article 27 (Art. 27) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties a Party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. Thus, having regard also to Article 17 (Art. 17) of the Convention, the State had an obligation to protect him from the industrial actions.   60.    The applicant argues that the choice proposed to him in order to avoid membership in an employers' association, namely the signing of a substitute agreement, was a fictitious one, as both his enrolment in an employers' association and the signing of a substitute agreement would have st