Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 25.04.1996 - 15573/89 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GUSTAFSSON c. SUÈDE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
Non-violation de l'Art. 11 Non-violation de l'Art. 6-1 Non-violation de l'Art. 13 Non-violation de P1-1 (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GUSTAFSSON v. SWEDEN
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
No violation of Art. 11 No violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 13 No violation of P1-1 (englisch) - Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte
(englisch)
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Verfahrensgang
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (13)
- EGMR, 13.08.1981 - 7601/76
YOUNG, JAMES ET WEBSTER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.1996 - 15573/89
Unlike the applicants in previous cases where the Court had recognised a negative right to freedom of association (see the Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom judgment of 13 August 1981, Series A no. 44, pp. 21-22, paras. 55-58; and the Sigurdur A. Sigurjónsson v. Iceland judgment of 30 June 1993, Series A no. 264, pp. 15-16, para. 35), the applicant in the present case had not been compelled to join an association.The facts of the present case are thus to be distinguished from those in the cases of Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 13 August 1981, Series A no. 44) and Sigurdur A. Sigurjónsson (cited above), where the complainants were compelled to join an association on pain of losing their means of livelihood.
Sweden is answerable for all breaches of the Convention occurring within its jurisdiction whether caused by private parties or by the State or its agencies (see the Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom judgment of 13 August 1981, Series A no. 44, p. 20, para. 49).
However that may be, the predominance in principle of the negative right implies that in cases where (as here) trade unions use collective action as a form of compulsion for compelling an individual employer to be directly or indirectly integrated in the system of collective bargaining, there is no longer any room for the "striking-at-the-very-substance-of-the-right-guaranteed-by-Article-11" (art. 11) test of the Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom judgment (13 August 1981, Series A no. 44, p. 23, para. 52).
- EGMR, 30.06.1993 - 16130/90
SIGURÐUR A. SIGURJÓNSSON v. ICELAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.1996 - 15573/89
Unlike the applicants in previous cases where the Court had recognised a negative right to freedom of association (see the Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom judgment of 13 August 1981, Series A no. 44, pp. 21-22, paras. 55-58; and the Sigurdur A. Sigurjónsson v. Iceland judgment of 30 June 1993, Series A no. 264, pp. 15-16, para. 35), the applicant in the present case had not been compelled to join an association.The interests protected by Article 11 (art. 11) As the judgment points out (at paragraph 45), Article 11 (art. 11) has been interpreted to encompass also the negative aspect of freedom of association, namely the right not to join an association (see Sigurdur A. Sigurjónsson v. Iceland judgment of 30 June 1993, Series A no. 264, pp. 15-16, para. 35).
Consequently, it becomes necessary in the present case to determine the question left open in the Sigurdur A. Sigurjónsson v. Iceland judgment (30 June 1993, Series A no. 264, p. 16, para. 35).
In spite of a certain reluctance to "open the door" to the negative freedom of association (paragraph 45, sub-paragraph 2) the Court, following the Sigurdur A. Sigurjónsson v. Iceland judgment of 30 June 1993 (Series A no. 264, pp. 15-16, para. 35), has interpreted this Article (art. 11) in its logical sense that this negative right of association - the right not to join or to withdraw from a trade union - is only one aspect of the freedom of association with others.
- EGMR, 06.02.1976 - 5589/72
SCHMIDT ET DAHLSTRÖM c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.1996 - 15573/89
Bearing in mind the special role and importance of collective agreements in the regulation of labour relations in Sweden, the Court sees no reason to doubt that the union action pursued legitimate interests consistent with Article 11 (art. 11) of the Convention (see, for instance, the above-mentioned Swedish Engine Drivers" Union judgment, pp. 15-16, para. 40; and the Schmidt and Dahlström v. Sweden judgment of 6 February 1976, Series A no. 21, p. 16, para. 36).It is true that in its now twenty-year-old and rather reticent judgments on the scope of the protection which trade unions enjoy under Article 11 (art. 11) (the National Union of Belgian Police v. Belgium judgment of 27 October 1975, Series A no. 19; the Swedish Engine Drivers" Union v. Sweden judgment of 6 February 1976, Series A no. 20, and the Schmidt and Dahlström v. Sweden judgment of 6 February 1976, Series A no. 21) the Court refrained from subscribing to the Commission's carefully reasoned and extensively documented opinion that the right to bargain collectively is indispensable for the effective enjoyment of trade-union freedom and is thus an element necessarily inherent in that freedom as safeguarded under Article 11 (art. 11) (Series B no. 18, pp. 47 et seq., paras. 76-78).
- EGMR, 24.02.1995 - 16424/90
McMICHAEL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.1996 - 15573/89
The Court is not prevented from taking them into account in determining the merits of the applicant's complaints under the Convention if it considers them relevant (see the Barthold v. Germany judgment of 25 March 1985, Series A no. 90, p. 20, paras. 41-42; and the McMichael v. the United Kingdom judgment of 24 February 1995, Series A no. 307-B, p. 51, para. 73).Consequently, additional facts supplementing or clarifying the facts established by the Commission are admissible (see the McMichael v. the United Kingdom judgment of 24 February 1995, Series A no. 307-B, p. 51, para. 73), but new facts which are contradictory to those established by the Commission, as a rule, are not.
- EGMR, 20.04.1993 - 14327/88
SIBSON c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.1996 - 15573/89
The responsibility of Sweden would nevertheless be engaged if those matters resulted from a failure on its part to secure to him under domestic law the rights set forth in Article 11 (art. 11) of the Convention (see, amongst others, the Sibson v. the United Kingdom judgment of 20 April 1993, Series A no. 258-A, p. 13, para. 27).For reasons that I expressed in my dissenting opinion in the Sibson v. the United Kingdom judgment of 20 April 1993 (Series A no. 258-A, pp. 16-19), I do follow however its conclusion on the applicability of Article 11 (art. 11) of the Convention to the subject-matter of the applicant's complaint.
- EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91
Radikalenerlaß
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.1996 - 15573/89
In this context it should be recalled that one of the objectives of freedom of association is precisely the protection of freedom of thought, conscience and religion and freedom of personal opinion (see, inter alia, the Vogt v. Germany judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 323 p. 25, para. 64). - EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.1996 - 15573/89
1 (art. 6-1) is not that he was denied an effective remedy enabling him to submit to a court a claim alleging a failure to comply with domestic law (as, for instance, in the Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, pp. 29-30, paras. 80-82). - EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81
POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.1996 - 15573/89
However, that provision (art. 6-1) does not in itself guarantee any particular content for (civil) "rights and obligations" in the Contracting States (see, for example, the Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, pp. 16-17, para. 36). - EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.1996 - 15573/89
Under the Convention system the establishment and verification of the facts is primarily a matter for the Commission (see, inter alia, the Ribitsch v. Austria judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, p. 24, para. 32). - EGMR, 19.07.1995 - 17506/90
KEROJÄRVI v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.1996 - 15573/89
According to the principles in the Court's case-law (see, for instance, the Kerojärvi v. Finland judgment of 19 July 1995, Series A no. 322, p. 12, para. 32), the Court has first to ascertain whether there was a dispute (contestation) over a "right" which could be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law. - EGMR, 21.06.1988 - 10126/82
Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" ./. Österreich
- EGMR, 25.03.1985 - 8734/79
Barthold ./. Deutschland
- EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91
PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE