CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 février 2007

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   133 27.2.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ASSOCIATED SOCIETY OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS & FIREMEN (ASLEF) v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers & Firemen (ASLEF) v. the United Kingdom (application no. 11002/05).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant association 53,900 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers & Firemen (ASLEF), is an independent trade union representing mainly train drivers on the United Kingdom’s railways. It has about 18,000 members and most train drivers are members of ASLEF. The various companies on the United Kingdom rail network do not operate a “closed shop” and railway workers, including drivers, are free to join ASLEF or other unions or not to join a union at all.   One of ASLEF’s stated aims is to “assist in the furtherance of the labour movement generally towards a Socialist society” and to “promote and develop and enact positive policies in regard to equality of treatment in our industries and ASLEF regardless of sex, sexual orientation, marital status, religion, creed, colour, race or ethnic origin”.   In 1978 ASLEF’s Annual Assembly of Delegates, its governing body, resolved to campaign against and “expose the obnoxious policies of political parties such as the National Front".   In February 2002, a Mr Lee (a member of the far-right, lawful, British National Party (‘BNP’), previously known as the National Front) applied for membership in ASLEF and was accepted. In April 2002 Mr Lee stood as a candidate in the local elections in Bexley for the BNP.   On 17 April 2002 an ASLEF trade union officer sent a report to the General Secretary concerning Mr Lee, attaching information that Mr Lee was a BNP activist, had handed out anti-Islamic leaflets dressed as a priest and that in 1998 he had stood as a BNP candidate in Newham. The report included an article written by Mr Lee for Spearhead (the BNP magazine) and a fax from Bexley Council for Racial Equality stating that Mr Lee had seriously harassed Anti-Nazi League pamphleteers.   On 19 April 2002, an Executive Committee meeting of ASLEF voted unanimously to expel Mr Lee, stating that his membership of the BNP was incompatible with membership with of ASLEF, that he was likely to bring the union into disrepute and that he was against the objects of the union.   Mr Lee brought successful proceedings in the Employment Tribunals (‘ET’) in respect of his expulsion, on the basis of section 174 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (‘section 174’), which prohibits trade unions from excluding a person or expelling a member wholly or to any extent on the ground that the individual is or was a member of a political party.   The applicant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’), which on 10 March 2004 quashed the decision and remitted it to a second ET. The EAT found that a union could expel a member on the ground of her or his conduct but not because he or she was a member of a political party.   A second ET again upheld Mr Lee’s complaint, because Mr Lee’s expulsion was “primarily because of his membership of the BNP”.   As a result, the applicant has been obliged to re-admit Mr Lee as a union member, in breach of its own rules. Had the applicant not re-admitted Mr Lee, it would have been liable to pay him compensation, a statutory minimum of, currently, just over 8,600 euros (EUR), with no upper limit. Even though it has re-admitted Mr Lee, the applicant remains exposed to an application from Mr Lee for compensation, subject to an upper limit of around EUR 94,200.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 24 March 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorran), President , Nicolas Bratza (British), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Ján Šikuta (Slovakian), Pâivi Hirvelä (Finnish), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar . 3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint Relying on Article 11 of the Convention, the applicant trade union alleged that it had been prevented from expelling one of its members due to his membership of the BNP, a political party which advocated views inimical to its own.   Decision of the Court   Article 11 The Court noted that, just as an employee or worker should be free to join, or not join, a trade union without being sanctioned or subject to disincentives, so should the trade union be equally free to choose its members. Article 11 could not be interpreted as imposing an obligation on associations or organisations to admit whosoever wished to join. Where associations were formed by people, who, espousing particular values or ideals, intended to pursue common goals, it would run counter to the very effectiveness of the freedom at stake if they had no control over their membership.   The question that arose in the applicant’s case concerned the extent to which the State might intervene to protect the trade union member, Mr Lee, against measures taken against him by his union, the applicant.   It was accepted that there was an interference with the applicant’s freedom of association (section 174), that the interference was lawful and that it was intended to protect the rights of individuals, such as Mr Lee, to exercise their various political rights and freedoms without undue hindrance.   Concerning whether the State had struck the right balance between Mr Lee’s rights and those of the applicant trade union, the Court was not persuaded that the measure of expulsion impinged in any significant way on Mr Lee’s exercise of freedom of expression or his lawful political activities. Nor was it apparent that Mr Lee suffered any particular detriment, save loss of membership itself in the union. As there was no closed shop agreement for example, there was no apparent prejudice suffered by the applicant in terms of his livelihood or in his conditions of employment. The Court had taken account of the fact that membership of a trade union was often regarded, in particular due to the trade union movement’s historical background, as a fundamental safeguard for workers against employers’ abuse and it had some sympathy with the notion that any worker should be able to join a trade union. However, ASLEF represented all workers in the collective bargaining context and there was nothing to suggest that Mr Lee was at any individual risk of, or was unprotected from, any arbitrary or unlawful action by his employer.   Of more weight in the balance was the applicant’s right to choose its members. Historically, trade unions in the United Kingdom, and elsewhere in Europe, had been, and though perhaps to a lesser extent today, still were, commonly affiliated to political parties or movements, particularly those on the left. They were not bodies solely devoted to politically-neutral aspects of the well-being of their members, but were often ideological, with strongly held views on social and political issues. There was no hint in the domestic proceedings that the applicant erred in its conclusion that Mr Lee’s political values and ideals clashed, fundamentally, with its own. There was no indication that the applicant had any public duty or role conferred on it, or that it had taken the advantage of state funding, such that it might reasonably be required to take on members to fulfil any other wider purposes.   Regarding the Government’s assertion that domestic law would have permitted the expulsion of Mr Lee if the applicant had restricted its grounds to conduct not related to his membership of the BNP, the Court noted that the Employment Tribunal found that the applicant’s objections to Mr Lee were primarily based on his membership of the BNP. The Court did not find it reasonable to expect the applicant to have used the pretext of relying purely on Mr Lee’s conduct which was largely carried out by him as a member of, and reflected his adherence to the aims of, the BNP.   Accordingly, in the absence of any identifiable hardship suffered by Mr Lee or any abusive and unreasonable conduct by the applicant, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 11.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   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.   [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.