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
(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
1950 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.
