003-5244058-6506962

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 381 (2015)   03.12.2015   Obligation on Samos winegrowers to be   members of a union violated the Convention   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Mytilinaios and Kostakis v. Greece   (application no. 29389/11) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had   been:   a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on   Human Rights.   The case concerned the obligation imposed on the applicants, who are winegrowers, to be members   of the Samos Union of vinicultural cooperatives, and their inability to obtain a winemaking permit to   market their wine.   The Court found that by requiring winegrowers to hand their entire wine production over to   cooperatives, domestic law had made the most restrictive choice regarding the freedom not to be a   member of an association (negative freedom), whereas the aims pursued (protecting the quality of   the grape variety and the winegrowers’ revenue) could have been achieved by alternative means. It   also considered that the national authorities’ refusal to grant the applicants a winemaking permit   exceeded what was necessary to strike a fair balance between the conflicting interests and could not   be regarded as proportionate to the aims pursued.   Principal facts   The applicants, Evagellos Mytilinaios and Ioannis Kostakis, are two Greek nationals who were born in   and 1954 respectively and live in Samos (Greece).   They are winegrowers and members of the Samos Union of vinicultural cooperatives, an association   with compulsory membership, which harvests the grapes and produces and markets a vintage   muscat wine that received the controlled designation of origin label in 1970.   Being unable to freely dispose of and market their wine production, the applicants sought   permission from the Union on a number of occasions to withdraw their membership but received no   reply. On 4 November 2005 they applied to the Supreme Administrative Court for judicial review of   the tacit refusal by the authorities to issue them with a winemaking licence. They alleged, among   other things, that they had suffered an interference with their right under Article 11 of the European   Convention on Human Rights not to be members of an association (negative freedom of   association). On 2 November 2010 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed their application on   the grounds, among other things, that the measure in question pursued a legitimate aim: protecting   the quality of a unique product. In so far as the applicants were only prevented from producing and   marketing the wine and not from freely cultivating their grapevines, the Supreme Administrative   Court concluded that the interference complained of had not infringed Article 11 of the Convention.   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,   any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges   considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final   judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   However, on 30 September 2011 the Commission of the European Union sent the Greek authorities   a warning letter and, on 20 June 2013, a reasoned opinion stating that Greece had failed to comply   with its obligations under EU regulation no. 1234/2007.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), the applicants complained that the   refusal by the national authorities, upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court, to grant them a   winemaking licence, on the grounds that the Samos Union of vinicultural cooperatives had exclusive   rights to produce and market Samos muscat wine, had interfered with their freedom not to be   members of an association.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 28 April 2011.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (the “Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), President,   Ledi Bianku (Albania),   Kristina Pardalos (San Marino),   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Greece),   Paul Mahoney (the United Kingdom),   Aleš Pejchal (the Czech Republic),   Robert Spano (Iceland),   and also André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association)   The Court observed first of all that the Samos Union of vinicultural cooperatives could not be   regarded as a public association for the purposes of the European Convention as it was not   integrated within the structures of the State and was not vested with administrative, rule-making or   disciplinary prerogatives2. Article 11 was therefore applicable in the present case.   The Court found that the tacit refusal of the national authorities, upheld by the Supreme   Administrative Court, to grant the applicants a winemaking licence on the grounds that the Samos   Union of vinicultural cooperatives had exclusive rights to produce and market Samos muscat wine,   was an “interference” with their freedom not to join an association (“negative” freedom of   association). The Court considered that the interference was prescribed by Law no. 6085/1934 and   pursued a legitimate aim, namely, protecting the quality of a unique wine and the revenue of   winegrowers in the general interest of the island of Samos.   The Court was aware that the cooperatives were firmly embedded in the local economic fabric and   contributed to the development of the area and the activity of their members. It noted the reasons   why the system of compulsory membership of cooperatives had been applied for viticulture in   Samos: to protect the quality of the grape variety in question, which was a precious resource for   Greece’s economy, and develop the cultivation of the grapevines, whose low prices at the time had   put farmers off growing the vines. In the Court’s view, those reasons did not appear particularly   relevant in the present context, however, as there were a large number of winegrowers today,   Samos muscat wine having received the controlled designation of origin label and the export market   being very buoyant.   Herrmann v. Germany, no. 9300/07, § 76, 20 January 2011   The Court also considered that the distinction made between winegrowing, which was unrestricted,   and producing and marketing the wine, for which membership of a cooperative was compulsory,   was an artificial one and in reality excluded any form of autonomy or independence of the   winegrowers concerned.   The Court noted that the minority of the Supreme Administrative Court judges had observed in the   judgment of 2 November 2010 that the aims pursued could be achieved by other means, such as   quality control. A winegrower could choose to become a member of the cooperative or,   alternatively, if he or she wished to produce and market the wine him or herself, submit it to a   certification procedure. The Court also noted that back in 1993 the legislature had introduced a way   of circumventing the principle of compulsory membership of cooperatives as these cooperatives   could, on their own initiative, become free cooperatives.   The Court found that by obliging winegrowers to hand their entire production of wine over to the   cooperatives, Law no. 6085/1934 had made the most restrictive choice regarding negative freedom   of association. Having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, the Court considered that   the national authorities’ refusal to grant the applicants a winegrowing licence exceeded what was   necessary to strike a fair balance between the conflicting interests and could not be regarded as   proportionate to the aim pursued. Accordingly, the Court held that there had been a violation of   Article 11 of the Convention.   Article 41 (just satisfaction)   The Court held that Greece was to pay the applicants 6,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of   non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 in respect of costs and expenses.   The judgment is available only in French.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHRpress.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   3