CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 30 novembre 2004

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 69 November 2004 Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden (dec.) - 53507/99 Decision 30.11.2004 [Section II] Article 11 Article 11-1 Form and join trade unions Interests of members Invalidation of a clause in a collective agreement on the ground that it hindered competition: inadmissible The applicant is a transport workers’ trade union which entered into a collective labour agreement with the association of newspaper publishers. A clause obliged companies bound by the agreement to hire contractors that were members of the union. In 1995, a company belonging to the association hired a contractor for the distribution of newspapers in a district where a union member had previously performed the task. The union sued the company and the association for breach of the aforementioned clause in the collective agreement, and obtained a favourable judgment from the Labour Court in September 1998. The contractor which had been hired subsequently complained to the Competition Authority, claiming that the clause in question restricted competition in a manner contrary to the law. The union was allowed to submit observations, but was not formally a party to the proceedings before the Competition Authority. In February 1999, the Competition Authority, whilst taking note of the Labour Court’s judgment, found that the inclusion of the clause in the collective agreement had restrictive effects on the market, and the clause became invalid. Only companies affected by the decision were entitled to bring an appeal. Admissible under Article 6 (access to court). Inadmissible under Article 11: The contentious clause in the collective agreement, which had remained in force for over twenty years, aimed at preventing the circumvention of salary arrangements by avoiding that companies hired contractors not covered by the agreement. Whilst collective agreements were important means of enabling trade unions to protect their members’ interests, Article 11 did not guarantee a right for a trade union to maintain a collective agreement of a particular content for an indefinite period. The matters complained of were not such as to give rise to an issue under this provision: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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