MADLANGA J as the coercion constituted an infringement of Article 11 of the European Convention, he would pursue the matter with the “Convention institutions”.48 Adopting the stance that the European Convention is a living document “which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions”,49 the ECHR first engaged in a discussion of developments that had taken place within the various member states since Young.50 It established that, predominantly, member states had moved away from the position expressed in the travaux préparatoires relied on in Young. Based on those developments, it accepted – categorically this time – that the protection of the right to freedom of association includes a negative right. In its own words: “Accordingly, Article 11 . . . must be viewed as encompassing a negative right of association. It is not necessary for the Court to determine in this instance whether this right is to be considered on an equal footing with the positive right. ... The applicant has since been compelled to remain a member of [the taxi association] and would otherwise . . . run the risk of losing his licence . . . . Such a form of compulsion, in the circumstances of the case, strikes at the very substance of the right guaranteed by Article 11 . . . and itself amounts to an interference with that right . . . ”51 The Court also held that the correlative52 was that – in the case of Mr Sigurjónsson whose personal political opinions were at odds with those of the taxi association – Article 11 fell to “be considered in the light of Articles 9 and 10, . . . the 48 Id at para 17. The Convention institutions referred to were the European Commission of Human Rights and ECHR. 49 Id at para 35. 50 Young above n 37. 51 Sigurjónsson above n 46 at paras 35-6. 52 On the concept of correlativity, see Woolman in Currie and de Waal above n 27 at 397-8 and Woolman et al above n 27 at 43-4. The ECHR did not use this term. It is my take that this is what was happening. 18