CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 février 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 94 February 2007 Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF) v. the United Kingdom - 11002/05 Judgment 27.2.2007 [Section IV] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of association Trade union prevented from expelling a member due to the latter’s membership of political party advocating views incompatible with its own: violation   Facts : The applicant is an independent trade union representing mainly train drivers. Supporting the labour movement towards a Socialist society, the applicant has, for many years, campaigned against certain policies of far-right political forces, for example, the British National Party (BNP). In 2002, an active member of that party applied for membership in ASLEF and was accepted. Shortly afterwards, the applicant’s Executive Committee voted unanimously to expel him, stating that his membership of the BNP was incompatible with membership of ASLEF, that he was likely to bring the union into disrepute and that he was against the objects of the union. The Committee relied on a report stating that he had stood as a candidate in local elections for the BNP and had been known for anti-Islamic propaganda and harassment of anti-Nazi activists. The expelled member brought successful proceedings in the Employment Tribunal, on the basis of a legal provision prohibiting trade unions from excluding a person or expelling a member wholly or to any extent on the ground that the individual is or was a member of a political party. The applicant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which quashed the decision and remitted it for fresh consideration, finding that a union could expel a member on the ground of his conduct but not of his membership of a political party. At a retrial, the complaint of the expelled member was again upheld since his expulsion was “primarily because of his membership of the BNP”. As a result, the applicant was obliged to re-admit the expelled member, in breach of its own rules. Had the applicant not re-admitted him, it would have been liable to pay him compensation, a statutory minimum of over EUR 8,000, with no upper limit. Even though it had re-admitted the member in question, the applicant remained exposed to an application for compensation on his part, subject to an upper limit of around EUR   94,000. Law : Just as an employee or worker should be free to join, or not join, a trade union without being sanctioned or subject to disincentives, so should a trade union be equally free to choose its members. Article   11 could not be interpreted as imposing an obligation on associations or organisations to admit whosoever wished to join. Where associations were formed by people, who, espousing particular values or ideals, intended to pursue common goals, it would run counter to the very effectiveness of the freedom at stake if the associations had no control over their membership. The interference with the applicant’s freedom of association had been lawful and had been intended to protect the rights of individuals to exercise their various political rights and freedoms without undue hindrance. The Court was not persuaded that the measure of expulsion had impinged in any significant way on the exercise of freedom of expression by the expelled member or his lawful political activities. Nor was it apparent that he had suffered any particular detriment (in terms of his livelihood or in his conditions of employment), save loss of membership itself in the union. The applicant union had represented all workers in the collective bargaining context and there had been nothing to suggest that the expelled member had been at any individual risk of, or had been unprotected from, any arbitrary or unlawful action by his employer. Of more weight in the balance was the applicant’s right to choose its members. Historically, trade unions in the United Kingdom, and elsewhere in Europe, had often been affiliated to left-wing political forces and had held strong ideological views on social and political issues. There was no hint in the domestic proceedings that the applicant had erred in its conclusion as to the incompatibility of the political values of the expelled member with its own. Contrary to the Government, the Court did not find it reasonable to expect the applicant to have relied purely on the member’s conduct which had largely reflected his membership and adherence to the aims of the BNP. Accordingly, in the absence of any identifiable hardship suffered by the expelled member or any abusive and unreasonable conduct by the applicant union, there had been a violation of Article   11. Conclusion : violation (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes