Axelsson and Others v Sweden (decision), 10 October 1986 [ECtHR]

Case no 12213/86

The applicants complain that they have been refused reserve permits since they are not members of MTEA. They invoke Article 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention. (...)

The Commission recalls that indeed MTEA hold 90 reserve permits, of which 35 were granted in April 1980. It appears however from the decisions of the County Administrative Board and the Board of Transport that the reason for the refusal of such licences to the applicants was the finding that there was no need for further licences in the area at that time. While members of MTEA therefore have the possibility of using reserve permits, whereas the applicants do not, the Commission does not find that the applicants have thereby been placed under any obligation to join MTEA. The Commission notes that they have been able to continue throughout to carry out their business of providing a taxi service.  In these circumstances, the Commission finds no appearance of a violation of the applicants' right to freedom of association under Article 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention.

It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

Submit Information



Enter Keyword

Select one or several topic(s)



Compulsion to join Business associations Economic objectives Hunting associations Pension funds Restrictions Criminal convictions Non-nationals Public officials Disclosure of member's name Deportation Discriminatory treatment Failure to promote Transfer