CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 juillet 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 88 July-August 2006 Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden (dec.) - 53507/99 Judgment 18.7.2006 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Trade union unable to challenge competition authority’s decision impacting on a collective labour agreement to which the union was a party: struck out under Article   37(1)(c) Article 37 Article 37-1-c Continued examination not justified Legislative review of limitations on access to court, and Government’s acknowledgment of a violation and offer to pay the applicant compensation: struck out Facts :The applicant union had a collective labour agreement with the Swedish Association of Newspaper Publishers which included a clause to the effect that any company hiring a contractor had to draw up a separate contract with the union. A company belonging to the association then hired a contractor to distribute newspapers in a district previously distributed by a union member. The union successfully sued the association and the company before the Labour Court. The company complained to the Swedish Competition Authority which found that the inclusion of the relevant clause in the collective labour agreement had impaired free and fair competition, and ordered the association and its member companies to no longer apply that clause, rendering it effectively invalid. The applicant union had been able to submit observations to the Competition Authority without formally being a party to the proceedings. Under section 60 of the Competition Act, however, only a company affected by its decision could lodge an appeal. Before the European Court the applicant union complained about its lack of access to a court to challenge the Competition Authority’s decision. After the application had been declared admissible the Government submitted that a legislative review of the limitations on access to a court implied by section 60 of the Competition Act was being conducted and was due to be concluded by 1 November 2006. The review was being made with specific reference to the decision given in the applicant’s case and the Government’s acknowledgment that it had given rise to a violation of Article   6(1). The Court noted the aforementioned facts along with the Government’s preparedness to pay the applicant union compensation for the violation, and considered it no longer justified to continue the examination application. The applicant union had objected to the Government’s request to strike out the application. Conclusion : struck out (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