CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 25 avril 1996

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC202EACC { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s1F7F12F1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt } .sE9B40630 { width:19.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s589F1A46 { width:25.5pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sAC9CE5D8 { width:39.7pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sCE41373D { width:108.77pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBEE2ACC7 { width:186.48pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s92A2E810 { width:196.1pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAE2C6750 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8AB0B9E4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5CB67CBD { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8C0F06CF { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFBE87F32 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sAB426D17 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9B49264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       COURT (GRAND CHAMBER)             CASE OF GUSTAFSSON v. SWEDEN   (Application no. 15573/89)             JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   25 April 1996 In the case of Gustafsson v. Sweden [1] , The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in pursuance of Rule 53 of Rules of Court B (2), as a Grand Chamber composed of the following judges:   Mr   R. Ryssdal , President ,   Mr   R. Bernhardt ,   Mr   F. Matscher ,   Mr   L.-E. Pettiti ,   Mr   B. Walsh ,   Mr   A. Spielmann ,   Mr   S.K. Martens ,   Mrs   E. Palm ,   Mr   I. Foighel ,   Mr   R. Pekkanen ,   Mr   A.N. Loizou ,   Mr   J.M. Morenilla ,   Mr   F. Bigi ,   Mr   M.A. Lopes Rocha ,   Mr   G. Mifsud Bonnici ,   Mr   J. Makarczyk ,   Mr   B. Repik ,   Mr   P. Jambrek ,   Mr   E. Levits , and also of Mr H. Petzold , Registrar , and Mr P.J. Mahoney , Deputy Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 24 November 1995 and 28 March 1996, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.    The case was referred to the Court on 1 March 1995 by the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") and on 15 May 1995 by the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden ("the Government"), within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention").   It originated in an application (no. 15573/89) against Sweden lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by a Swedish national, Mr Torgny Gustafsson, on 1 July 1989. The Commission’s request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby Sweden recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46). The object of the request and of the Government’s application was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed breaches by the respondent State of its obligations under Articles 6, 11 and 13 of the Convention (art. 6, art. 11, art. 13) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1). 2.    In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 35 para. 3 (d) of Rules of Court B, the applicant stated that he wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer who would represent him (Rule 31). 3.    The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Mrs E. Palm, the elected judge of Swedish nationality (Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 4 (b)).   On 5 May 1995, in the presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the other seven members, namely Mr F. Matscher, Mr B. Walsh, Mr S.K. Martens, Mr R. Pekkanen, Mr A.N. Loizou, Mr F. Bigi and Mr P. Jambrek (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 5) (art. 43). 4.    As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 6), Mr Ryssdal, acting through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the Government, the applicant’s lawyer and the Delegate of the Commission on the organisation of the proceedings (Rules 39 para. 1 and 40).   Pursuant to the order made in consequence, the Registrar received the Government’s memorial on 12 September 1995 and the applicant’s memorial on 13 September 1995.   In a letter of 19 October 1995 the Secretary to the Commission informed the Registrar that the Delegate did not wish to reply in writing. 5.    On 28 September 1995 the Chamber, having regard to a request by the Government of 30 August, decided to relinquish jurisdiction forthwith in favour of a Grand Chamber (Rule 53).   The President and the Vice-President, Mr R. Bernhardt, as well as the other members of the Chamber being ex officio members of the Grand Chamber, the names of the other nine judges were drawn by lot by the President in the presence of the Registrar on 28 September 1995 (Rule 53 para. 2 (a) and (b)), namely Mr L.-E. Pettiti, Mr A. Spielmann, Mr I. Foighel, Mr J.M. Morenilla, Mr M.A. Lopes Rocha, Mr G. Mifsud Bonnici, Mr J. Makarczyk, Mr B. Repik and Mr E. Levits. 6.    On 24 October 1995 the Grand Chamber dismissed a request to hear witnesses which the Registrar had received from the Government on 17 October (Rule 43 para. 1, taken together with Rule 53 para. 6).   On various dates between 19 and 25 October, the Registrar received letters from the applicant providing comments on the above request. 7.    On 27 September, 24 October 1995 and 10 January 1996 the applicant submitted further particulars on his Article 50 (art. 50) claims.   On 10 November 1995 the Commission produced a number of documents from the file in the proceedings before it, as requested by the Registrar on the President’s instructions. 8.    In accordance with the President’s decision, the hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 22 November 1995.   The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand. There appeared before the Court: (a) for the Government     Mr C.H. Ehrenkrona, Assistant Under-Secretary for Legal Affairs,       Ministry for Foreign Affairs,   Agent ,     Mr D. Ekman, Permanent Under-Secretary,Ministry of Labour,     Mr P. Virdesten, Under-Secretary for Legal Affairs,       Ministry of Labour,     Mrs I. Åkerlund, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Labour,     Mrs H. Jäderblom, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Justice, Advisers ; (b) for the Commission     Mrs G.H. Thune,   Delegate ; (c) for the applicant     Mr G. Ravnsborg, Lecturer in Law at the University       of Lund,   Counsel . The Court heard addresses by Mrs Thune, Mr Ravnsborg and Mr Ehrenkrona, and also replies to questions put by the Court and by the President. AS TO THE FACTS I.    PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE THE CASE 9.    From the summer of 1987 until the end of 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’s employees numbered less than ten.   They were engaged on a seasonal basis, but had the option of being re-employed the following year. The applicant’s ownership of the restaurant and youth hostel was direct and entailed his personal financial liability (enskild firma). 10.    As the applicant was not a member of either of the two associations of restaurant employers, namely the Swedish Hotel and Restaurant Entrepreneurs’ Union (Hotell- och Restaurangar - betsgivareföreningen - "HRAF", which is affiliated to the Swedish Employers’ Confederation (Svenska Arbetsgivareföreningen - "SAF")) and the Employers’ Association of the Swedish Union of Restaurant Owners (Svenska Restauratörsförbundets Arbetsgivareförening - "SRA"), he was not bound by any collective labour agreement (kollektivavtal) between the two associations and the Hotel and Restaurant Workers’ Union (Hotell- och Restauranganställdas Förbund - "HRF").   Nor was he obliged to subscribe to the various labour-market insurance schemes (Arbetsmarknadsförsäkring) developed through agreements between SAF and the Swedish Trade Union Confederation (Landsorganisationen). It was, however, open to the applicant to accede to a collective agreement by accepting a substitute agreement (hängavtal). He could also subscribe to insurance schemes with Labour-Market Insurances or any of the other ten or so insurance companies in the field. 11.    In late June or early July 1987 he refused to sign a separate substitute agreement with HRF. He referred to his objections of principle regarding the system of collective bargaining. He also emphasised that his employees were paid more than they would have been under a collective agreement and that they themselves objected to his signing a substitute agreement on their behalf. The substitute agreement proposed to the applicant included these terms: "Parties: [The applicant] and [HRF] Term of validity: From 1 July 1987 up to and including31 December 1988, thereafter for one year at a time, unlessnotice 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 amendor supplement the [present] agreement, [the new agreement,amendments or supplements] shall automatically apply as fromthe day on which [it or they] [has or have] been [agreed upon]. ... 1. [The employer shall] [on his employees’ behalf] subscribeto and maintain [five different] insurance-policy schemes withLabour-Market Insurances, ... as well as other possibleinsurance-policy schemes which [the employers’ association andHRF] might later agree upon. 2. [The employer shall] issue employment certificates on aspecial 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 the event ofre-employment the provisions of section 25 of the EmploymentProtection Act (lag (1982:80) om anställnings-skydd) shallapply. 4. [The employer shall] deduct on a monthly basis a part ofthe salary of employed members of [HRF] corresponding to theirmembership fees, and pay [the deducted part] to [HRF]. ..." 12.    On 16 July 1987, during further negotiations with the applicant, HRF proposed another substitute agreement, which he also rejected: "Subject: The signing of a collective agreement regarding [therestaurant] Ihrebaden ... and the Lummelunda youth hostel. 1. Having regard to the forthcoming end of the [season of1987] 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 nationalagreement’) between [HRAF] and [HRF], this including the obligation to subscribe to [certain] insurance schemes(avtalsförsäkringar) with Labour-Market Insurances. 2. The enterprise also agrees to [comply with] [the]collective labour agreement ... during the next season ...,either by way of membership of the employers’ union or bysigning a ... substitute agreement ..." 13.    Had the applicant accepted a substitute agreement, it would have applied not only to those of his employees who were unionised but also to those who were not. In the summer of 1986, one member of HRF was employed by the applicant. In 1987 he employed another member of that union and also two persons who were respectively members of the Commercial Employees’ Union (Handelsanställdas Förbund) and the Union of Municipal Workers (Kommunalarbetareförbundet). In 1989, one member of the latter union was employed by the applicant. 14.    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 industrial action was taken the same month by the Commercial Employees’ Union and the Swedish Food Workers’ Union (Svenska Livsmedelsarbetareförbundet). In the summer of 1988 sympathy action was also taken by the Swedish Transport Workers’ Union (Svenska transportarbetareförbundet) and the Union of Municipal Employees (Kommunaltjenestemannaförbundet). As a result deliveries to the restaurant were stopped. 15.    One of the persons employed by the applicant at Ihre baden who was member of HRF had publicly expressed the opinion that the industrial action was unnecessary, as the salary and working conditions in the restaurant were not open to criticism. According to the Government, the union action had its background in a request for assistance in 1986 by an HRF member employed by the applicant.   In the view of the union, the applicant paid his employees approximately 900 Swedish kronor (SEK) a month less than what they would have received under a collective agreement.   He did not pay his staff holiday compensation as provided for in the 1977 Annual Leave Act (semesterlagen 1977:480), nor salary during lay-offs due to poor weather conditions as required by the 1982 Employment Protection Act and he did not sign a labour-market insurance until 1988. 16.    In August 1988 the applicant, invoking the Convention, requested the Government to prohibit HRF from continuing the blockade and the other trade unions from continuing their sympathy action and to order the unions to pay compensation for damages.   In the alternative, he requested that compensation be paid by the State. 17.    By a decision of 12 January 1989 the Government (Ministry of Justice) dismissed the applicant’s request. The Government stated: "The requests for a prohibition of the blockade and thesympathy action as well as compensation for damage from thetrade unions concern a legal dispute between private subjects.According to Chapter 11, Article 3, of the Instrument of Government [Regeringsformen which forms part of theConstitution], such disputes may not be determined by anypublic authority other than a court of law, except by virtueof law. There is no provision in the law which authorises theGovernment to examine such disputes. The Government will not,therefore, examine these requests on the merits. The claim for damages is dismissed." 18.    The applicant applied to the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) for review under the 1988 Act on Judicial Review of Certain Administrative Decisions (lag (1988:205) om rättsprövning av vissa förvaltningsbeslut - "the 1988 Act").   On 29 June 1989 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the application on the ground that the Government’s decision did not concern an administrative matter involving the exercise of public power, which was a condition for review under section 1 of the Act. 19.    On 15 September 1989 the Swedish Touring Club (Svenska turistföreningen - "STF"), a non-profit-making association promoting tourism in Sweden, terminated the membership of the applicant’s youth hostel, referring to a lack of cooperation and the applicant’s negative attitude towards STF. As a result, the hostel was no longer mentioned in STF’s catalogue of youth hostels in Sweden. In 1989 about half of the youth hostels in Sweden were enrolled in STF. 20.    The applicant brought proceedings in the District Court (tingsrätten) of Stockholm. He contested what he considered to be his personal exclusion from STF, alleging that it had been caused by HRF threats that it would take industrial action against other youth hostels enrolled in STF if his hostel was not excluded. He also challenged STF’s termination of the membership of his youth hostel. STF accepted, inter alia, that although the termination of the membership contract concerning the applicant’s youth hostel had not been prompted by the conflict between the applicant and the trade unions, this conflict might have affected the timing of the decision. STF also referred to an opinion of the Competition Ombudsman (ombudsmannen för näringsfrihet) of 14 November 1989 to the effect that the termination of the contract in question would have only a very limited impact on his business. 21.    By a 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 Competition Ombudsman’s finding. 22.    The applicant appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt) which, on 6 March 1992, upheld the District Court’s judgment. The Court of Appeal 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 continued or renewed his membership.   Moreover, although the contract had been of appreciable significance to the applicant’s business, STF’s termination of the contract could not be considered unreasonable. 23.    At 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 action.   The restaurant was bought by a person who signed a collective agreement with HRF.   He continued, together with his family, to run the youth hostel in Lummelunda. Following the above, the union action was terminated. 24.    On 9 November 1991 the applicant requested the Government to support his application to the Commission. On 12 December 1991 the Government decided not to take any action in respect of the request. II.    RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW A. Freedom of association 25.    Chapter 2, Article 1, of the Instrument of Government provides: "All citizens shall be guaranteed the following in theirrelations with the public authorities: 1. freedom of expression: the freedom to communicateinformation and to express ideas, opinions and emotions whether orally, in writing, in pictorial representations, or in anyother way; ... 5. freedom of association: the freedom to unite with othersfor public or private purposes; ..." 26.    According to Chapter 2, Article 2: "All citizens shall be protected in their relations with the public authorities against all coercion designed to compel themto divulge an opinion in any political, religious, cultural orother similar connection.   They shall furthermore be protectedin their relations with the public authorities against allcoercion designed to compel them to participate in any meetingfor the formation of opinion or in any demonstration or otherexpression of opinion or to belong to any politicalassociation, religious congregation or other association foropinions of the nature referred to in the first sentence." 27.    Chapter 2, Article 12 paras. 1 and 2, reads: "The freedoms and rights referred to in Article 1 paras. 1 to5 ... may be restricted by law to the extent provided for inArticles 13-16 ... The restrictions referred to in the preceding subsection mayonly be imposed to achieve a purpose which is acceptable in ademocratic society.   The restriction may never exceed what isnecessary having regard to the purpose which occasioned it, normay it be carried so far as to constitute a threat to the freeformation 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." 28.    Chapter 2, Article 14 para. 2 provides: "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." 29.    Pursuant to Chapter 2, Article 17: "Any trade union or employer or association of employers has a right to take industrial action unless otherwise provided by law or by agreement." B. Right of association 30.    Section 7 of the 1976 Act on Co-Determination at Work reads: "Right of association means the right of employers andemployees to belong to an organisation of employers oremployees, to benefit from their membership as well as to workfor an organisation or for the founding of one." 31.    Section 8 provides: "The right of association shall not be violated.   A violation... will occur, if anyone from the employer’s side or the employee’s side takes any action to the detriment of anybodyon the other side by reason of that person having exercised hisright of association, or if anybody on either side takes anyaction against anybody on the other side with a view toinducing that person not to exercise his right of association.A violation will occur even if the action so taken is designedto fulfil an obligation towards another party. An employers’ or employees’ organisation 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 termination of anagreement or another legal measure or by a provision in acollective agreement or other contract, that measure orprovision shall be void." 32.    According to section 10: "An employees’ organisation shall have the right to negotiatewith an employer regarding any matter relating to therelationship between the employer and any member of theorganisation who is or has been employed by that employer.   Anemployer shall have a corresponding right to negotiate with anemployees’ organisation. A right of negotiation ... shall also be enjoyed by the employees’ organisation in relation to any organisation towhich an employer belongs, and by the employers’ organisationin relation to the employees’ organisation." C. Judicial remedies 33.    Chapter 11, Article 3, of the Instrument of Government provides: "Legal disputes between private subjects shall only be settledby a court of law, unless otherwise provided by law ..." 34.    In principle, it is possible for an employer against whom industrial action has been instituted to request a court injunction requiring that the action cease, and to claim damages. Such orders may be made by the relevant court if the industrial action is unlawful or in breach of an existing collective agreement. If the industrial action amounts to a criminal offence, a claim for compensation may be made under Chapter 2, section 4, of the 1972 Compensation Act (skadeståndslag 1972:207). 35.    Pursuant to section 1 of the 1988 Act, a person who has been a party to administrative proceedings before the Government or another public authority may, in the absence of any other remedy, apply to the Supreme Administrative Court, as the first and only judicial instance, for review of any decisions in the case which involve the exercise of public authority vis-à-vis a private individual. The kind of administrative decision covered by the Act is further defined in Chapter 8, Articles 2 and 3, of the Instrument of Government, to which section 1 of the 1988 Act refers. According to these provisions the Act encompasses measures concerning, inter alia, personal and economic matters arising in relations between private persons and between such persons and the State. Section 2 of the Act specifies several types of decision which fall outside its scope, none of which are relevant in the instant case. In proceedings brought under the 1988 Act, the Supreme Administrative Court examines whether the contested decision "conflicts with any legal rule" (section 1 of the 1988 Act). If the court finds that the impugned decision is unlawful, it must quash it and, where necessary, refer the case back to the relevant administrative authority (section 5 of the 1988 Act). PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 36.    In his application to the Commission of 1 July 1989 (no. 15573/89) Mr Gustafsson complained that the lack of State protection against the industrial action taken against his restaurant gave rise to a violation of his right to freedom of association as guaranteed by Article 11 (art. 11) of the Convention and also of his right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), in conjunction with Article 17 (art. 17) of the Convention. He further alleged breaches of his rights under Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (art. 13) (right to an effective remedy), complaining that the court remedies to which he could have recourse in order to challenge the industrial action would have been ineffective since such action was lawful under Swedish law. 37.    On 8 April 1994 the Commission declared the application admissible. In its report of 10 January 1995 (Article 31) (art. 31), the Commission expressed the opinion that (a) there had been a violation of Article 11 (art. 11) (by thirteen votes to four); (b) it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) in conjunction with Article 17 (art. 17) of the Convention (by eleven votes to six); (c) there had been no violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention (by sixteen votes to one); (d) there had been a violation of Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention (by fourteen votes to three). The full text of the Commission’s opinion and of the four separate opinions contained in the report is reproduced as an annex to this judgment [2] . FINAL SUBMISSIONS MADE TO THE COURT 38.    At the hearing on 22 November 1995 the Government, as they had done in their memorial, invited the Court to hold that there had been no violation of the Convention in the present case. 39.    On the same occasion the applicant reiterated his request to the Court stated in his memorial to find that there had been violations of Articles 6, 11 and 13 (art. 6, art. 11, art. 13) of the Convention, and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) in conjunction with Article 17 (art. 17) of the Convention. AS TO THE LAW I.    ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 (art. 11) OF THE CONVENTION 40.    The applicant complained that the union action had infringed his right to freedom of association and that the failure of the respondent State to protect him against this action constituted a violation of Article 11 (art. 11) of the Convention, which reads: "1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly andto freedom of association with others, including the right toform and to join trade unions for the protection of hisinterests. "2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of theserights other than such as are prescribed by law and arenecessary in a democratic society in the interests of nationalsecurity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder orcrime, for the protection of health or morals or for theprotection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article(art. 11) shall not prevent the imposition of lawfulrestrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of thearmed forces, of the police or of the administration of theState." 41.    The Government disputed this contention, whereas the Commission shared the applicant’s view that there had been a violation. A. Applicability of Article 11 (art. 11) 42.    The Government contested the applicability of Article 11 (art. 11) to the matters complained of by the applicant. Unlike the applicants in previous cases where the Court had recognised a negative right to freedom of association (see the Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom judgment of 13 August 1981, Series A no. 44, pp. 21-22, paras. 55-58; and the Sigurdur A. Sigurjónsson v. Iceland judgment of 30 June 1993, Series A no. 264, pp. 15-16, para. 35), the applicant in the present case had not been compelled to join an association.   The union action had primarily been aimed at making the applicant apply to his employees a certain agreement negotiated by the relevant labour organisations.   This could have been achieved not only by the applicant joining one of the two employers’ associations in the trade - the Swedish Hotel and Restaurant Entrepreneurs’ Union ("HRAF") and the Employers’ Association of the Swedish Union of Restaurant Owners ("SRA") - but also by his signing with the Hotel and Restaurant Workers’ Union ("HRF") a substitute agreement to the existing collective agreements applied in the restaurant trade (see paragraph 10 above).   He could have avoided the union action by availing himself of the possibility of entering into negotiations with the union with a view to reaching a solution based on a substitute agreement drafted in a way that was adapted to the special character of the business run by the applicant (see paragraphs 11 and 12 above).   The conclusion of such an agreement might have affected the applicant’s freedom as an employer to conclude contracts with his employees, but this freedom was not as such guaranteed by the Convention. The Government in addition pointed out that in practice the union action had essentially had the effect of stopping deliveries of goods to his restaurant (see paragraph 14 above) and had not involved occupation or picketing of the applicant’s business premises.   Nor had he substantiated his claim that he had had to sell the restaurant or had suffered any other form of pecuniary damage as a result of the industrial action. 43.    The applicant and the Commission maintained that the unions’ boycott and blockade of his business had affected his right to negative freedom of association.   Admittedly, had the applicant concluded a substitute agreement, the primary purpose of the action, namely to achieve the largest possible acceptance and the widest possible application of the collective agreement to which HRF was a party, could have been attained without the applicant becoming a member of HRAF or SRA.   However, the applicant objected not only to formal membership but also to participation in the collective-bargaining system, since in both cases he would have become bound by a collective agreement with HRF.   One of the most important effects of membership of an employers’ association in Sweden was the members’ participation, through the association, in collective bargaining and their undertaking to be bound by any collective agreement concluded by the association.   Therefore, even though the applicant had had the possibility of accepting these obligations without formally joining HRAF or any other association, it would be artificial and formalistic to deny that his negative freedom of association had been affected. 44.    The Court considers that although the extent of the inconvenience or damage caused by the union action to the applicant’s business may be open to question, the measures must have entailed considerable pressure on the applicant to meet the union’s demand that he be bound by a collective agreement.   He had two alternative means of doing so: either by joining an employers’ association, which would have made him automatically bound by a collective agreement, or by signing a substitute agreement (see paragraphs 10 and 11 above).   The Court accepts that, to a degree, the enjoyment of his freedom of association was thereby affected.   Article 11 (art. 11) is thus applicable in the present case.   The Court will therefore examine whether there was an infringement of his right to freedom of association for which the respondent State was responsible. B. Compliance with Article 11 (art. 11) 1. General principles 45.    The matters complained of by the applicant, although they were made possible by national law, did not involve a direct intervention by the State.   The responsibility of Sweden would nevertheless be engaged if those matters resulted from a failure on its part to secure to him under domestic law the rights set forth in Article 11 (art. 11) of the Convention (see, amongst others, the Sibson v. the United Kingdom judgment of 20 April 1993, Series A no. 258-A, p. 13, para. 27). Although the essential object of Article 11 (art. 11) is to protect the individual against arbitrary interferences by the public authorities with his or her exercise of the rights protected, there may in addition be positive obligations to secure the effective enjoyment of these rights. In the most recent judgment delivered in this connection, Article 11 (art. 11) of the Convention has been interpreted to encompass not only a positive right to form and join an association, but also the negative aspect of that freedom, namely the right not to join or to withdraw from an association (see the above-mentioned Sigurdur A. Sigurjónsson judgment, pp. 15-16, para. 35).   Whilst leaving open whether the negative right is to be considered on an equal footing with the positive right, the Court has held that, although compulsion to join a particular trade union may not always be contrary to the Convention, a form of such compulsion which, in the circumstances of the case, strikes at the very substance of the freedom of association guaranteed by Article 11 (art. 11) will constitute an interference with that freedom (see, for instance, the above-mentioned Sibson judgment, p. 14, para. 29). It follows that national authorities may, in certain circumstances, be obliged to intervene in the relationships between private individuals by taking reasonable and appropriate measures to secure the effective enjoyment of the negative right to freedom of association (see, mutatis mutandis, the Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" v. Austria judgment of 21 June 1988, Series A no. 139, p. 12, paras. 32-34). At the same time it should be recalled that, although Article 11 (art. 11) does not secure any particular treatment of the trade unions, or their members, by the State, such as a right to conclude any given collective agreement, the words "for the protection of [their] interests" in Article 11 para. 1 (art. 11-1) show that the Convention safeguards freedom to protect the occupational interests of trade-union members by trade-union action.   In this respect the State has a choice as to the means to be used and the Court has recognised that the concluding of collective agreements may be one of these (see, for instance, the Swedish Engine Drivers’ Union v. Sweden judgment of 6 February 1976, Series A no. 20, pp. 15-16, paras. 39-40). In view of the sensitive character of the social and political issues involved in achieving a proper balance between the competing interests and, in particular, in assessing the appropriateness of State intervention to restrict union action aimed at extending a system of collective bargaining, and the wide degree of divergence between the domestic systems in the particular area under consideration, the Contracting States should enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in their choice of the means to be employed. 2. Application of the foregoing principles 46.    The applicant emphasised that he objected to becoming bound by a collective agreement mainly on grounds of political and philosophical conviction.   Rather than subjecting himself and his employees to union corporatism, he wished to retain the personal character of the relationship between himself as employer and his employees. The applicant and the Commission were of the view that the pressure which was brought to bear upon him was such as to require the Swedish authorities to take positive measures of protection.   Because of the blockade and boycott, he was largely prevented from obtaining deliveries of the necessary goods for the running of his restaurant (see paragraph 14 above).   As a result, the applicant’s business suffered considerably and he had to sell the restaurant (see paragraph 23 above). These harsh measures had not been counterbalanced by any strong legitimate interests of HRF in forcing the applicant to sign a collective agreement. When taking action against the applicant, HRF had not represented any members employed by him.   The only HRF member who was employed by the applicant had not asked for the union’s assistance but had expressly stated that she found the industrial action unnecessary, as the terms of employment offered by him were not open to criticism (see paragraph 15 above). On the contrary, they were more favourable than those which would have applied under the collective agreement in force. For these reasons HRF’s action was disproportionate to the interests which it sought to protect. In such circumstances, the applicant and the Commission underlined, it was incumbent on the respondent State to provide for effective legal redress, for instance by making available to the applicant legal procedures which would have made it possible for him to mitigate or terminate the action taken against him.   Since no such legal protection existed in Swedish law, the facts giving rise to the applicant’s complaint constituted a violation of his rights under Article 11 (art. 11) of the Convention. 47.    The applicant further considered that the Government, having refrained from arguing before the Commission that the union action was justified, were estopped from changing their stance and adducing evidence in this respect in the proceedings before the Court. The Commission’s Delegate pointed out that the additional information and fresh arguments submitted by the Government on this point could and should have been adduced and invoked before the Commission.   She invited the Court to consider very carefully what weight could be given to that information and to those arguments at this late stage of the proceedings. 48.    The Government, in their memorial to the Court, stressed for the first time that the Commission’s finding that the terms of employment of the applicant’s employees were more favourable than those that would have applied under a collective agreement, was based on the applicant’s own submissions to the Commission and had never been confirmed or accepted by the Government. Before the Court, the Government, relying on information provided by HRF, disputed this finding. The collective agreement which the union sought to achieve with the applicant had had the aim of substantially improving the economic and social conditions for the applicant’s existing and future employees (see paragraph 15 above). In the absence of a collective agreement governing the relationship between the applicant and his employees, the latter could not benefit from the protection provided in important parts of the Swedish labour legislation.   The working conditions applied by the applicant gave him a competitive advantage over other restaurant owners. 49.    In the Government’s opinion, the applicant was in effect challenging a system that had been applied in Sweden for sixty years and which could be said to have formed one of the most important elements in what had become known as the "Swedish model" of industrial relations, believed by many to have contributed significantly to the Swedish Welfare State.   The Government stated that in Sweden most major employers were affiliated to an employers’ organisation bound by a collective agreement and about 85% of employees were unionised.   An essential and long-standing feature of the Swedish model was that industrial relations were determined primarily by the parties to the labour-market rather than by State intervention.   Thus, wages, working hours, leave entitlements and various other kinds of terms of employment were governed by collective agreements, covering 90% of the labour-market, rather than by legislation.   Another important feature was that employers should not be able to gain a competitive advantage over their competitors by offering less favourable working conditions than those provided for by collective agreements. Moreover, the Government pointed out that, as a result of the prohibition under Swedish law to resort to strikes, boycotts and other means in industrial relations governed by a collective agreement, such actions had been kept at a tolerable level for many years.   On the other hand, unions not bound by a collective agreement with a particular employer had been left with a wide discretion in taking measures to make that employer sign a collective agreement.   This reflected the importance the legislator had attached to the right of trade unions to promote their interests. 50.    In these circumstances, the Government considered that Sweden was not under an obligation under Article 11 (art. 11) of the Convention to take positive measures to protect the applicant against the union action. 51.    As to the particular circumstances of the present case, the Court notes from the outset that the additional information concerning the terms and conditions of employment adduced by the Government before it supplement the facts underlying the application declared admissible by the Commission. The Court is not prevented from taking them into account in determining the merits of the applicant’s complaints under the Convention if it considers them relevant (see the Barthold v. Germany judgment of 25 March 1985, Series A no. 90, p. 20, paras. 41-42; and the McMichael v. the United Kingdom judgment of 24 February 1995, Series A no. 307-B, p. 51, para. 73). 52.    As indicated earlier (see paragraph 44 above), the union action must have entailed a considerable pressure on the applicant to meet the union’s demand that he accept to be bound by a collective agreement, either by joining an employers’ association or by signing a substitute agreement.   However, only the first alternative involved membership of an association. It is true that, had the applicant opted for the second alternative, he might have had less opportunity to influence the contents of future collective agreements than as a member of an employers’ association. On the other hand, a substitute agreement offered the advantage that it would have been possible to include in it individual clauses tailored to the special character of the applicant’s business. In any event, it does not appear, nor has it been contended, that the applicant was compelled to opt for membership of an employers’ association because of economic disadvantages attached to the substitute agreement. In reality the applicant’s principal objection to the second alternative was, as in relation to the first alternative, of a political nature, namely his disagreement with the collective-bargaining system in Sweden. However, Article 11 (art. 11) of the Convention does not as such guarantee a right not to enter into a collective agreement (see the above-mentioned Swedish Engine Drivers’ Union judgment, pp. 15-16, paras. 40-41). The positive obligation incumbent on the State under Article 11 (art. 11), including the aspect of protection of personal opinion, may well extend to treatment connected with the operation of a collective-bargaining system, but only where such treatment impinges on freedom of association. Compulsion which, as here, does not significantly affect the enjoyment of that freedom, even if it causes economic damage, cannot give rise to any positive obligation under Article 11 (art. 11). 53.    Furthermore, the applicant has not substantiated his submission to the effect that the terms of employment which he offered were more favourable than those required under a collective agreement.   Bearing in mind the special role and importance of collective agreements in the regulation of labour relations in Sweden, the Court sees no reason to doubt that the union action pursued legitimate interests consistent with Article 11 (art. 11) of the Convention (see, for instance, the above-mentioned Swedish Engine Drivers’ Union judgment, pp. 15-16, para. 40; and the Schmidt and Dahlström v. Sweden judgment of 6 February 1976, Series A no. 21, p. 16, para. 36). It should also be recalled in this context that the legitimate character of collective bargaining is recognised by a number of international instruments, in particular Article 6 of the European Social Charter, Article 8 of the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Conventions nos. 87