CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } Published on 27 October 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 37028/23 SWEDISH TRANSPORT WORKERS’ UNION against Sweden lodged on 4 October 2023 communicated on 8 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the Swedish courts’ decision to invalidate a trade union’s decision to expel one of its members. In 2019 the applicant, the Swedish Transport Workers’ Union ( Svenska Transportarbetareförbundet, hereinafter “the applicant union ” ), pursuant to provisions in its statutes, decided to expel one of its members, in essence on the grounds that he actively represented the Sweden Democrats ( Sverigedemokraterna), a political party whose policies were considered incompatible with the aims of the applicant union. At the request of the member concerned, the District Court declared the decision invalid. This judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal and, on 5 July 2023, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal. The courts found, inter alia , that the applicant union’s decision was subject to judicial review and that it had not demonstrated that the member had engaged in activities that were incompatible with the applicant union’s statutes, as interpreted by the courts. The applicant union complains that the invalidation of its decision to expel the member violated its rights under Article 11 of the Convention, contending, in particular, that the interference was not prescribed by law and that there were insufficient reasons to invalidate the decision.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant union’s freedom of association, in particular its right to form a trade union, within the meaning of Article   11 §   1 of the Convention (see Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF) v. the United Kingdom , no.   11002/05, §§   38-39, 27 February 2007)? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   11 § 2 (see, inter alia , Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF), cited above, §§   37-53, and Vlahov v.   Croatia , no.   31163/13, §§ 52-74, 5 May 2022)?