CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 20 juin 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s595A57E4 { width:85.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA8C2B9B0 { width:20.37pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   356 20.6.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER HEARING EVALDSSON AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Chamber hearing today Tuesday 20 June 2006 at 9   a.m., on the merits in the case of Evaldsson and Others v. Sweden (application no. 75252/01).   The applicants   The case concerns an application brought by Tommy Evaldsson, Johan Svahn, Tonnie Hodell, Jonny Lindqvist and Conny Brandt, five Swedish nationals, born in 1948, 1974, 1965, 1964 and 1963 respectively.   Summary of the facts   The applicants were employed by the construction company LK Mässinteriör AB from 3 March to 30   July 1999.   The company was bound by a collective labour agreement, the Construction Agreement ( Byggnads-avtalet ), concluded between the Swedish Building Workers’ Union ( Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet) (the Union) and Swedish Construction Industries ( Sveriges Byggindustrier .   At the relevant time, eight employees in the company carried out work covered by the labour agreement. Three of those workers were members of the Union whereas the five applicants were not members of the Union or of any other trade union.   Under the collective agreement, as it stood at the relevant time, the local union branch had the right to monitor certain salary payments and to be reimbursed for the costs involved on the basis of a fee of 1.5 per cent of the worker’s salary. The employer was obliged to deduct that amount from the worker’s salary and to supply the local branch with the information it needed for monitoring work. Only workers belonging to another union were exempt from those deductions.   On 22 May 1991 the company and local union concluded an agreement concerning the monitoring work, which specified that it was the company’s responsibility to provide the relevant information and to deduct the fees from its workers’ salaries.   The applicants asked to be exempted from those deductions. The company complied with their requests, stopped paying the fees to the Union or providing the agreed information concerning the applicants. The union insisted on payment and initiated formal local negotiations. However, no solution was reached.   The Industries eventually brought the case before the Labour Court ( Arbetsdomstolen ), seeking a declaratory judgment to the effect that the company was not obliged to levy the fees in question. On 7 March 2001, the Labour Court rejected the Industries’ claims.   Complaints   The applicants maintain that they were forced to contribute to the financing of a union’s general activities against their will and in a manner comparable to a union member, which was tantamount to forced membership of the union. They also allege that they suffered discrimination compared both to members of the Union and members of other trade unions. They rely on Article 11 (freedom of association), Article 9 (freedom of thought and conscience), Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 4 September 2001 and declared partly admissible on 28 March 2006.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , András Baka (Hungarian), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), judges , Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian), Dragoljub Popović (Serbian), substitute judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Carl Henrik Ehrenkrona , Agent ,   Karin Renman, Mattias Falk, Petra Herzfeld Olsson , Advisers ;   Applicants :   Percy Bratt, Jan Södergren , Counsel ,   Gustav Herrlin, Tina Holm, Clarence Crafoord, Advisers .   The applicant, Tommy Evaldsson will also attend the hearing.     ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.   Press Contacts   Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.