Information Note on the Court’s case-law 186

June 2015

Manole and 'Romanian Farmers Direct' v. Romania - 46551/06

Judgment 16.6.2015 [Section III]

Article 11

Article 11-1

Form and join trade unions

Refusal to register a group of self-employed farmers as a trade union: no violation

Facts – In January 2006 the first applicant, a farmer, and 48 other individuals held a constituent general meeting at which they dec ided to form a trade union called “Romanian Farmers Direct”. The first applicant was elected as its president.

The first applicant subsequently applied to the District Court to have the group registered as a trade union for the purpose of acquiring legal p ersonality. According to its statutes, the main aim of the union would be to defend the interests of its members, who were farmers or persons who provided services, including transport, to farmers. The District Court declared the application for registrati on inadmissible on the ground that only employees and public servants could form trade unions. The appeals against that decision were dismissed.

Law – Article 11: The refusal to register the applicants as a trade union-type association amounted to interfer ence with the exercise of their right to form and join trade unions. The interference had been prescribed by a law which was accessible and foreseeable and according to which only employees and public servants were entitled to set up trade union organisati ons; this excluded self-employed farmers. The interference had pursued a legitimate aim, namely to safeguard the economic and social order by maintaining a distinction between trade unions and other kinds of associations.

At the time of the events, self-em ployed farmers had enjoyed the same rights of association as any other self-employed persons carrying on a profession or occupation in industry or in other sectors of the economy. This was in line with Convention No. 11 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) on the right of association (agriculture), which had been ratified by Romania in 1930. As self-employed farmers, the first applicant and th e other persons who had sought to register as a trade union were entitled in the same way as other self-employed persons to join trade unions but not to form them.

In view of the sensitive social and political issues linked to rural employment and the high degree of divergence between national systems in that regard, the Contracting States should be afforded a wide margin of appreciation as to the manner in which they secured the right of freedom of association to self-employed farmers. Moreover, under the current legislation farm employees and the members of cooperatives had the right to form trade unions and to belong to them.

Furthermore, in the light of the general comments of the ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR), adopted in 2012 and published in 2013, concerning the application by Romania of Convention No. 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, the Court did not find sufficient grounds to infer that the exclusi on of self-employed farmers from entitlement to form trade unions constituted a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.

The legislation in force at the time of the events, like that currently in force, had in no way restricted the applicants’ right to form professional associations. Moreover, the Court had no evidence in the present case to suggest that, if the persons concerned were to form an association, it would lack the essential prerogatives enabling it to defend the collective interests of its member s in dealings with the public authorities.

Under the domestic legislation, farmers’ organisations enjoyed essential rights enabling them to defend their members’ interests in dealings with the public authorities, without needing to be established as trade unions. In agriculture as in the other sectors of the economy, that form of association was henceforth reserved solely for employees and members of cooperatives.

In sum, the refusal to register the applicants as a trade union had not overstepped the nation al authorities’ margin of appreciation in this sphere and had therefore not been disproportionate.

Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).

(See also the Factsheet on Trade union right s )

© 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