CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. H. DANELIUS

      The so-called negative freedom of association, i.e. the right not

to join and not to be a member of an association, has been at issue

before the European Court of Human Rights in the Young, James and

Webster case (Eur. Court H.R., Young, James and Webster judgment of

13 August 1981, Series A no. 44) and in the Sigurdur A. Sigurjónsson

case (Eur. Court H.R., Sigurdur A. Sigurjónsson judgment of

30 June 1993, Series A no. 264). It appears from this case-law, and in

particular from the latter judgment, that the negative freedom of

association is in principle protected by Article 11 of the Convention.

The two judgments also show that there may in certain circumstances be

a breach of Article 11 when a person is dismissed from employment or

denied the right to exercise his trade or profession on the ground that

he is not a member of a certain association. In these two cases there

were certain characteristic features: on the one hand, there was no

special connection between the membership of an association and the

nature of the employment and, on the other hand, the loss of the

employment entailed considerable hardship for the persons concerned.

      On the other hand, there may well be other cases where membership

of a certain association is a fully justified condition for employment

which could not be considered to raise an issue in regard to Article 11

of the Convention. For instance, a political party or another political

organisation may find it essential that all its employees, or its

employees in special functions, are members of that political party or

that organisation in order to be sure that the employees share the same

political ideology and can be expected to be loyal to the party or

organisation. There is a similar situation if a church, a religious

sect or a religious school adopts the policy of only employing persons

who have demonstrated their faith by becoming members of the relevant

church or a particular religious organisation. In such circumstances

there is a clear link between membership of an organisation and

employment. Consequently, there could be no question of a violation of

the freedom of association of persons who, without being members, would

wish to be employed by such a political or religious organisation.

      The same reasoning could be applied, a fortiori, to eligibility

to various political positions of trust, which are of a special

character and are also of lesser importance to the individual than

employment. In most cases it is normal that membership of political

bodies is reserved - entirely or mainly -for persons who hold certain

political views, and it would generally seem acceptable that membership

of a political party is chosen as a criterion for the right to fulfil

such functions. In fact, this criterion is often appropriate in order

to avoid ambiguity and make the system clear and stable.

      It is true that in the present case the National Coalition Party

accepted the applicant as its representative on the Health Care Board

despite the fact that he was not a member of that party. However, even

in these circumstances it cannot, for the purposes of Article 11 of the

Convention, be considered unreasonable or irrelevant for the Finnish

courts to have applied membership of a party as a criterion for

membership of the Health Care Board. As a supplementary consideration,

it should also be noted that the refusal to accept the applicant as a

member of the Health Care Board did not involve any hardship for him

which could be compared with the serious consequences which arose for

the applicants in the Young, James and Webster and Sigurdur A.

Sigurjónsson cases.

      I am therefore of the opinion that in this case there has been

no interference with the applicant's right under Article 11 of the

Convention.

      As I have already found, on the basis of the reasoning above,

that membership of a political party was in this case an acceptable

criterion, I consider that the discrimination aspect referred to by the

applicant does not raise a separate issue which has to examined on the

basis of Article 14 of the Convention.

                                                       (Or. English)