CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 9 janvier 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sDDB50A14 { color:#ff0000 } .sB6FDB88 { color:#0000ff } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)12 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Evaldsson and others against Sweden   (Application No. 75252/01, judgment of 13 February 2007, final on 13 May 2007)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns a breach of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions due to shortcomings in the mechanism whereby fees for a trade union’s monitoring of wages were deducted from their pay (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with Sweden’s obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix);   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate: - of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - of general measures, preventing similar violations;   DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)12   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Evaldsson and others against Sweden     Introductory case summary   This case concerns a breach of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions due to shortcomings in the mechanism whereby fees for a trade union’s monitoring of wages were deducted from their pay (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The European Court noted that approximately 30 euros had been deducted monthly from the applicants’ wages to cover the union’s monitoring fee but that this deduction could be considered as pursuing a legitimate aim “in the public interest” as the inspection work aimed to protect the interests of construction workers generally. In 1999, 250 non-union workers had had their wages adjusted as a result of the union’s monitoring activities thus showing that the applicants did receive a certain service in return for the fee paid. However, these fees should have been for inspection activities only and not used to contribute to the union’s activities and should also have been accounted for separately. The Court found that the applicants had not been given sufficient information to enable them to verify how the fees they paid had actually been used, information to which they were all the more entitled, given that the fees were deducted from their pay against their will and paid to an organisation with a political agenda they did not agree with. The Court concluded that the union’s wage-monitoring activities lacked transparency and, even having regard to the limited amounts of money involved, it was not proportionate in the applicants’ case to make deductions from their wages without giving them a proper opportunity to check how the money was spent.     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 25   000 euros 87   800 euros 112   800 euros Paid on 16/07/2007   b) Individual measures   The applicants were employed by the construction company in question from 03/03/1999 to 30/07/1999. The sums levied were about 160 euros per applicant. The applicants have not, however, claimed any pecuniary damages. The Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained. According to the information provided by the Swedish authorities in August 2007, a new collective agreement for the building sector (Sveriges Byggindustriert, Avtalsrörelsen 2007), which abolished the clause on the levy of the monitoring fee (see articles §3, §4 and §5), was concluded on 24/04/2007.     II.   General measures   The withdrawal of the clause on the monitoring fee in the collective agreement for the building sector indicates that the parties to the relevant collective agreement have expressed a willingness to comply with the judgment of the European Court. In any event, if any such clause were to be inserted again in a collective agreement and the wage-monitoring activities would lack the necessary transparency, it is reasonable to assume that the national courts would refuse to apply the clause, as well as to accept any payment obligation arising from it.   Given the direct effect of the Convention and of the European Court’s jurisprudence in Sweden, the withdrawal of the clause on the levy of the monitoring fee and the publication and dissemination of the judgment to relevant authorities are sufficient measures for the execution of the judgment and for the prevention of similar violations in future. The European Court’s judgment and a summary in Swedish, has been published on the government’s website ( www.manskligarattigheter.gov.se ) and on the website of the National Courts Administration ( www.domstol.se ). The judgment has also been published on the news bulletin on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. It has been disseminated to the authorities concerned, such as the Labour Court, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen, and the Chancellor of Justice.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted have remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent new similar violations and that Sweden has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 9 January 2009 at the 1043rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies