MADLANGA J Article 20 of the UDHR45 – the ECHR still held that it could not be that Article 11 was permitting every kind of compulsion in the field of trade union membership. 46 The upshot of this is that, albeit with a great degree of circumspection, the ECHR effectively recognised the existence of the negative right in the context of compulsion of a particular type; presumably heightened compulsion. A later Article 11 challenge to come before the ECHR was Sigurjónsson.47 In this matter as well, the negative right not to be coerced to associate was at issue. In Iceland a licence to operate a taxicab was granted subject to membership of a taxi association. The applicant, Mr Sigurdur A Sigurjónsson, an Icelandic national and taxi operator, applied for and was granted a licence to operate a taxicab. In fulfilment of the condition, Mr Sigurjónsson joined a taxi association and paid membership dues under protest. This was the association that operated in his area. In terms of the law, he had to be a member of that association. In a letter to the association, which was also transmitted to the relevant Ministry, he stated that: under applicable law he had no choice but to join the taxi association; membership of the association was contrary to his interests and wishes; the taxi association’s articles of association contained provisions that were at odds with his political opinions; in addition, the association used funds from members to work against his interests; the legislation that coerced membership of a taxi association was incompatible with the European Convention; and, 45 This being the paragraph that reads: “No one may be compelled to belong to an association.” 46 The ECHR explains its approach and assumption in the later judgment of Sigurdur A Sigurjónsson v Iceland, 30 June 1993, Series A no. 264 (Sigurjónsson) at para 35. It says: “As to the question of the general scope of the right in issue, the Court notes, in the first place, that although the [Young] judgment took account of the travaux préparatoires, it did not attach decisive importance to them; rather it used them as a working hypothesis (. . . ‘Assuming for the sake of argument . . .’ and ‘Assuming that Article 11 . . . does not guarantee the negative aspect of that freedom on the same footing as the positive aspect . . .’).” 47 Id. 17