CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 30 juin 1993

.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 } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; 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. June 1993 Sigurður A. Sigurjónsson v. Iceland - 16130/90 Judgment 30.6.1993 Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of association Compulsion imposed by law on taxicab driver to be member of a specific organisation ("Frami") for taxicab operators: 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.   Existence of interference "Frami", being predominantly a private-law organisation, to be regarded an "association" for purposes of Article 11 - not necessary to decide whether Frami can also be regarded as a "trade union". General scope of the right in issue: existence of common ground between Contracting States in this area - Convention a living instrument to be interpreted in light of present-day conditions – Article 11 thus had to be viewed as encompassing a negative right (right not to join or to withdraw from an association) – left open whether this right to be considered on an equal footing with the positive right. Circumstances of the case: Government's argument that applicant had agreed to join Frami, or that obligation to join existed, when he obtained his licence to operate a taxicab in 1984, was not persuasive -only after entry into force of 1989 Law did it become clear that membership was a licence condition - he had since been compelled to be a member and would otherwise run risk of losing licence   - form of compulsion which struck at very substance of the Article 11 right and itself amounted to interference - impugned compulsion was contrary to his own opinions, which also constituted interference with this right, viewed in light of Articles   9 and 10. B.   Whether interference justified Not disputed that at the material time membership obligation was "prescribed by law" and pursued a legitimate aim, but contested that it was "necessary in a democratic society" - being imposed by law, constituted a form of compulsion which, on the very face of it, had to be regarded as incompatible with Article 11 - no doubt that Frami had a role that served public interests and that its performance of this role facilitated by obligation on every taxi licence holder within the area to be member - however, reasons adduced by Government, although relevant,   not sufficient to show that "necessary" to compel applicant to be member of Frami on pain of losing licence and contrary to his own opinions - in particular, notwithstanding Iceland's margin of appreciation, measures complained of were disproportionate to legitimate aim pursued. Conclusion : violation (eight votes to one). II.   ARTICLES 9 AND 10 OF THE CONVENTION These Articles had been taken into account in context of Article 11. Conclusion : not necessary to examine (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION Applicant accepted that no violation of this Article. Conclusion : not necessary to examine (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage: no claim made. B.   Legal fees and expenses: reimbursement accepted, but only in part. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sums to the applicant (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