EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

SECOND CHAMBER

Application No. 29105/95

Wilhelm Ländström

against

Sweden

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 21 October 1998)

29105/95 - i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

PART I  : STATEMENT OF THE FACTS 2

PART II : SOLUTION REACHED 3

INTRODUCTION

1. This Report relates to the application introduced under Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Wilhelm Ländström against Sweden on 4 July 1995.  It was registered on 8 November 1995 under file No. 29105/95.

The Government of Sweden were represented by their Agent, Ms Eva Jagander .

2. On 10 September 1997 the Commission (Second Chamber) declared admissible the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the lack of an oral hearing in proceedings relating to the destruction of a dog.  It then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides as follows:

"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to it:

a. it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake together with the representatives of the parties an examination of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the Commission;

b. it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in this Convention."

3. The Commission (Second Chamber) found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 21 October 1998 it adopted this Report, which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.

The following members were present when the Report was adopted:

MM J.-C. GEUS, President

M.A. NOWICKI

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

Mrs G.H. THUNE

MM F. MARTINEZ

I. CABRAL BARRETO

D. ŠVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

E. BIELIŪNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

A. ARABADJIEV

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

4. The applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1919 and resident in Landvetter .  Before the Commission he is represented by Mr Arne Bodén , Farsta .

5. Following neighbours ' complaints about the applicant's dog, the Police Authority in the County of Göteborg and Bohus , on 17 October 1994, ordered that the dog be destroyed in accordance with Section 3, subsection 2 of the Act on the Supervision of Dogs and Cats ( Lagen om tillsyn över hundar och katter , 1943:459).  On 17 November 1994 the decision was upheld by the County Administrative Board ( länsstyrelsen ) of the County of Göteborg and Bohus .  The applicant appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal ( kammarrätten ) in Göteborg and requested that an oral hearing be held in the case.  After having informed the applicant that it would not hold a hearing as it was deemed unnecessary, the court, on 27 December 1994, formally decided to reject the applicant's request in this respect.  On the same day the court rejected the applicant's appeal on the merits.  On 20 February 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court ( Regeringsrätten ) refused the applicant leave to appeal.

6. By decision of 15 May 1995, the police authority allowed the applicant to take the dog home for two weeks to have it examined by a psychologist.  The applicant never returned the dog and it has since been kept in hiding.

7. Before the Commission the applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he did not have an oral hearing in the Administrative Court of Appeal.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

8. Following the decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission (Second Chamber) placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals they wished to make.

9. In accordance with the usual practice, the Chamber Secretary, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.

10. By letter of 31 July 1998, the Government informed the Commission that the parties had reached a friendly settlement on the following terms:

"1. The Government declares that the decision of the Police Authority in the County of Göteborg and Bohus on 17 October 1994, in accordance with Section 3 subsection 2 of the Act on the Supervision of Dogs and Cats ..., to destroy the applicant's dog Lorro , a male German Shepherd, cannot be enforced;

2. The Government will pay the sum of SEK 50,000 to [the applicant];

3. [The applicant] declares that he has no further claims on the Swedish State based on the facts of the above application.

This settlement is dependent upon the formal approval of the Swedish Government at a Cabinet meeting."

The settlement, which had been signed by the Agent of the Government on 5 June 1998 and by the applicant's representative on 16 June 1998, was approved by the Government by decision of 2 July 1998.

11. At its session on 21 October 1998, the Commission (Second Chamber) noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement.  It further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.

12. For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.

M.-T. SCHOEPFER                          J.-C. GEUS

                  Secretary                              President

          to the Second Chamber                 of the Second Chamber