CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 avril 1996

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .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 No. April 1996 Gustafsson v. Sweden - 15573/89 Judgment 25.4.1996 [GC] Article 11 Article 11-1 Form and join trade unions Not join trade unions Lack of State protection for a restaurant owner against lawful industrial action aimed at making him bound by a collective agreement: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Applicability Although extent of inconvenience or damage caused to applicant's restaurant business by union action open to question, measures must have entailed considerable pressure to meet union's demand that he be bound by collective agreement - he had two alternative means of doing so: either by joining an employers' association, which would have made him automatically bound by a collective agreement, or by signing a substitute agreement - to a degree his enjoyment of freedom of association thereby affected. Conclusion : applicable (eleven votes to eight). B.   Compliance 1.   General principles It followed from Court's case-law that national authorities may, in certain circumstances, be obliged to intervene in relationships between private individuals by taking reasonable and appropriate measures to secure effective enjoyment of negative right to freedom of association. At the same time, it was reiterated that, although Article 11 did not secure any particular treatment of trade unions, or their members, by the State, such as right to conclude any given collective agreement, its wording showed that freedom to protect occupational interests of trade-union members by trade-union action was safeguarded by Convention - in this respect State had choice as to means to be used and it is recognised that the concluding of collective agreements may be one of these. In view of sensitive character of social and political issues involved in achieving proper balance between competing interests and, in particular, in assessing appropriateness of State intervention to restrict union action aimed at extending system of collective bargaining, and wide degree of divergence between domestic systems in this area, States should enjoy wide margin of appreciation in the choice of means to be employed. 2.   Application of foregoing principles Additional information concerning terms and conditions of employment adduced by Government before Court supplemented facts underlying application declared admissible by Commission - Court not prevented from taking them into account in determining merits of applicant's complaints under the Convention if it considered them relevant. Only the first of the two above-mentioned alternative means of meeting union's demand involved membership of an association. Had applicant opted for second alternative, that of signing a substitute agreement, he might have had less opportunity to influence contents of future collective agreements than as member of an employers' association - on other hand, substitute agreement offered advantage of individual clauses tailored to special character of applicant's business - in any event, neither apparent nor contended that applicant compelled to opt for membership of an employers' association because of economic disadvantages attached to substitute agreement. In reality, applicant's principal objection to second alternative, as in relation to first alternative, was of a political nature, namely disagreement with collective-bargaining system in Sweden - however, Article 11 did not as such guarantee right not to enter into collective agreement - positive obligation incumbent on State under Article 11, including aspect of protection of personal opinion, might well extend to treatment connected with operation of collective-bargaining system, but only where such treatment impinged on freedom of association - compulsion which, as here, did not significantly affect enjoyment of that freedom, even if caused economic damage, could not give rise to any positive obligation under Article 11. Applicant had not substantiated submission that terms of employment which he offered were more favourable than those required under collective agreement - bearing in mind special role and importance of collective agreements in regulation of labour relations in Sweden, no reason to doubt that union action pursued legitimate interests consistent with Article 11 - legitimate character of collective bargaining moreover recognised by number of international instruments. Conclusion : no violation (twelve votes to seven). II.   ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 Relevant rule: right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. Admittedly, State may be responsible for interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions resulting from transactions between private individuals - in present case, however, not only were impugned facts not the product of exercise of governmental authority but concerned exclusively relationships of contractual nature between private individuals, namely applicant and his suppliers and deliverers - such repercussions as the stop in deliveries had on applicant's restaurant were not such as to bring Article into play. Conclusion : inapplicable and thus no violation (thirteen votes to six). III.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION Applicability depended on whether there was dispute over a right recognised by national law - applicant's complaint under Article   6 § 1 was not that denied effective remedy enabling him to submit to a court a claim alleging failure to comply with national law, but that union action lawful - however, provision did not in itself guarantee any particular content for (civil) "rights and obligations". Conclusion : inapplicable and thus no violation (fourteen votes to five). IV.   ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION Applicant's complaint under Convention essentially directed against fact that union action lawful under Swedish law. Conclusion : inapplicable and thus no violation (eighteen votes to one).   © 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