PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. G. JÖRUNDSSON

      I do not agree with the majority of the Commission that there has

been a violation of Article 11 in this case.

      The action taken by HRF and other trade unions was not directly

aimed at making the applicant join an employers' association. It can

be assumed that its purpose was rather to strengthen the collective

bargaining system in its area of activity and, in particular, to

achieve the largest possible acceptance of the collective agreement to

which HRF was itself a party.

      In my opinion, a particular regard must be had to the requirement

inherent in the positive freedom of association explicitly afforded to

trade unions that they should be able to strive for the protection of

their members' interests. Requiring State protection of the negative

freedom of association by limiting the possibilities of unions to

institute industrial actions could jeopardise the positive aspect of

that very freedom. This would be contrary to the very essence and

spirit of Article 11.

      Moreover, it is clear that it would have been possible for the

applicant to undertake to apply the collective agreement without

becoming a member of any association. This he could have done by

concluding a so-called substitute agreement with HRF.

      It is true that at least one of the proposed substitute

agreements would also have compelled the applicant to engage only

members or members-to-be of HRF and that both substitute agreements

proposed would have entailed an obligation to comply with certain other

conditions such as the obligation to contract insurances within the

framework "Labour Market Insurances" developed by central parties on

the labour market. In my view, however, the contents of those

agreements were not tantamount to a forced de facto membership in an

employers' association contrary to Article 11.

      Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, I have

reached the conclusion that there has been no failure on the part of

the respondent State to ensure the negative aspect of the applicant's

right to freedom of association, as guaranteed by Article 11, and,

accordingly, that there has been no violation of Article 11 in the

present case.

                                                        (Or. English)