7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 8.  As from 1976 there had been a clause in the collective labour agreement (kollektivavtal – “the agreement”) between the applicant union and the Swedish Association of Newspaper Publishers (Svenska Tidningsutgivareföreningen – “the Association”) which read as follows:
“Companies which are bound by this collective agreement and hire a contractor must draw up a separate contract with the Swedish Transport Workers’ Union¹.  ...
[Footnote 1: Distribution work on foot, by bicycle or by car may not be carried out by contractors.]” 9.  The clause was introduced on the initiative of the applicant, under threat of industrial action, with a view to preventing the agreement’s clauses on salaries being circumvented by member companies of the Association hiring contractors not covered by the agreement. According to the applicant, the clause served an important purpose in that it protected a weaker party from being forced to abandon the status of an employee covered by the social security system and become a contractor not covered by this system. 10.  In 1995 T., a company belonging to the Association, hired a contractor, the L. company, to carry out the distribution of newspapers by car in a district where a union member had previously performed that task. As the applicant considered that this action violated the relevant clause in the agreement, it sued the Association and T. before the Labour Court (Arbetsdomstolen) in 1996, after negotiations between the parties had failed. The Association and T. claimed that the clause adversely affected competition in the newspaper-distribution market and thus violated the Competition Act (konkurrenslagen, SFS 1993:20). 11.  On 16 September 1998 the Labour Court, by seven votes to two, found for the applicant, inter alia rejecting the argument that the disputed clause infringed the Competition Act. The minority considered that the clause was incompatible with section 6 of the Act. 12.  In 1996 the L. company complained to the Swedish Competition Authority (Konkurrensverket), claiming that the clause in question violated the Competition Act, in that it prohibited the use of contractors and thus restricted competition in a manner contrary to section 6 of the Act. The Competition Authority heard evidence from the Association, T. and four other member companies, as parties to the case. The applicant was given the opportunity to submit its observations on the case but was not formally a party to the proceedings. 13.  In a decision of 19 February 1999, the Competition Authority first observed that its examination of the case was limited to considering whether the decision by the Association and its member companies to include the clause in the agreement with the applicant was contrary to section 6 of the Competition Act. It then went on to consider the newspaper-distribution market, and the restrictive effects which the clause had on that market. While taking note of the Labour Court’s judgment, the Competition Authority found that the decision had in effect noticeably hindered, limited or made difficult competition in that market, and therefore violated section 6 of the Competition Act. As a consequence, the Association and its member companies were ordered, under section 23 of the Competition Act, to discontinue applying the decision in question. Thus, in effect, the clause became invalid. 14.  Under section 60 of the Competition Act, only a company affected by the Competition Authority’s decision could lodge an appeal against it to the Market Court (Marknadsdomstolen). No appeal was lodged against the decision of 19 February 1999. 15.  According to information submitted by the Government, a legislative review of the limitations on access to a court implied by section 60 of the Competition Act is currently being carried out and is due to be concluded by 1 November 2006 (Tilläggsdirektiv till Utredningen om en översyn av konkurrenslagen (N 2004:19) Dir. 2005:75). The review is made with specific reference to the above-mentioned decision of 19 February 1999 by the Competition Authority and the Government’s acknowledgment that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in the present case.