EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

SECOND CHAMBER

Application No. 27411/95

L.G.

against

Sweden

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 14 January 1998)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION

(paras. 1-7) 1

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

(paras. 8-25) 2

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

(paras. 26-36)              4

A. Complaint declared admissible

(para. 26) 4

B. Point at issue

(para. 27) 4

C. As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

(paras. 28-35)              4

CONCLUSION

(para. 36) 5

DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS G.H. THUNE, MM F. MARTINEZ,

P. LORENZEN and E.A. ALKEMA              6

APPENDIX I: PARTIAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO

THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION 7

APPENDIX II: FINAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO

THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION 15

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The present Report concerns Application No. 27411/95 introduced on 27 September 1994 against Sweden and registered on 20 January 1995.

2. The applicant is a Swedish national born in 1953 and resident in Eringsboda .

3. The respondent Government are represented by their agent, Ms Eva Jagander .

4. The application was communicated to the Government on 15 May 1996.  The parties were invited to submit written observations on the complaint relating to the length of civil proceedings (Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention). The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. Following an exchange of observations, the length of proceedings complaint was declared admissible on 21 May 1997. The decisions on admissibility are appended to this Report. The applicant submitted further observations on the merits of the case on 3 July 1997.

5. Having noted that there is no basis upon which a friendly settlement within the meaning of Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention can be secured, the Commission (Second Chamber), after deliberating, adopted this Report on 14 January 1998 in accordance with Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, the following members being present:

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

J. MUCHA

D. ŠVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

E. BIELIŪNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

A. ARABADJIEV

6. In this Report the Commission states its opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a violation of the Convention by Sweden.

7. The text of the Report is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

8. On 26 July 1989 the applicant instituted proceedings against a company before the District Court ( tingsrätten ) of Ronneby . The applicant claimed that he had been employed by the company for a period of four weeks but that, on his first day at work, he had been dismissed without objective grounds. Maintaining that the company had breached certain provisions of the Act on Security of Employment (Lag om anställningsskydd , 1982:80), the applicant claimed that the company was liable to pay damages.

9. On 25 October 1989, after having been granted a two month extension by the court, the defendant company submitted its written observations to the court. On 6 December 1989 the applicant replied.  He also requested the court to give the Swedish Metal Workers' Union ( Svenska metallindustriarbetareförbundet ) an opportunity to submit observations in the case.

10. On 27 June 1990 the court requested observations from the Swedish Metal Workers' Union and the Swedish Engineering Employers' Association ( Sveriges Verkstadsförening ). The two organisations replied on 15 August and 28 September 1990, respectively.

11. The District Court held a preparatory hearing in the case on 25 February 1991. At the hearing the applicant was ordered to specify the legal grounds for his action and to submit a statement of evidence before 20 March 1991.

12. On 23 April 1991, after the court had granted an extension of the time-limit, the applicant's legal aid counsel replied to the order.  On the same day counsel, invoking fundamental disagreements between him and the applicant, requested the court to be relieved of his task. By decision of 7 February 1992, the court granted the counsel's request.

13. On 20 June 1991 the applicant submitted his own statement in reply to the District Court's order concerning legal grounds and evidence. The court forwarded this statement to the defendant company on 11 February 1992. The company's reply of 31 March 1992 was sent by the court to the applicant on 2 June 1992. On 25 June 1992 the applicant submitted further observations.

14. At the District Court's preparatory hearing it was decided that the main hearing should be held in September 1991.  However, despite repeated inquiries by the applicant in 1991 and 1992, there was no hearing during these years. In June 1992 the court asked the applicant if the case could be decided without a hearing. The applicant answered in the negative.

15. On 16 October 1992 and, upon the court's request for supplementary information, on 20 January 1993 the defendant company submitted statements of evidence.

16. The parties were later summoned to the main hearing scheduled for 23 March 1993. The hearing was, however, postponed as the chairman of the court had fallen ill. 

17. Eventually, the main hearing took place on 7 May 1993. At the beginning of the hearing, the parties were informed by the court that E.P. , an official of the local Employment Office ( Arbetsförmedlingen ), who had been called as a witness by both parties, was unable to appear as he was, at that time, on vacation in Austria.  Instead, he gave evidence by telephone.

18. By judgment of 26 May 1993 the District Court found against the applicant. It considered that he had failed to show that an  employment agreement had been concluded between him and the company.

19. On 15 June 1993 the applicant appealed to the Labour Court ( Arbetsdomstolen ). He requested, inter alia , that the case be referred back to the District Court for a re-hearing during which E.P. should give evidence in person. He further adduced new evidence.

20. On 28 January 1994 the Labour Court decided that the District Court's hearing of E.P.'s testimony by telephone had not constituted a procedural error and that the case should therefore not be referred back to the District Court.

21. On 7 February 1994 the Labour Court requested the applicant to submit a statement of evidence, which he did on 4 March 1994. Upon the court's request, further statements were submitted on 13 April and 28 April 1994. With regard to the statement of 13 April, the applicant requested and was granted a four week extension of the time-limit set by the court. The defendant company replied to the applicant's statements on 20 May 1994. The applicant submitted further observations on 20 May and 2 June 1994.

22. By decision of 8 June 1994 the Labour Court decided not to admit the new evidence adduced by the applicant, as he had not shown a valid excuse for not having brought the evidence before the District Court.

23. On 16 September 1994 the Labour Court summoned the parties and E.P. to a hearing scheduled for 6 December 1994.  This hearing was, however, cancelled as E.P. was unable to appear.

24. On 28 February 1995 the Labour Court held its hearing in the case. E.P. gave evidence in person.

25. By a final judgment of 22 March 1995 the Labour Court upheld the District Court's judgment. 

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A. Complaint declared admissible

26. The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint that his case was not heard within a reasonable time.

B. Point at issue

27. The only point at issue is whether the length of the proceedings complained of exceeded the "reasonable time" requirement referred to in Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

C. As regards Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention

28. The relevant part of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention provides as follows:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ..."

29. The proceedings in question concerned the applicant's employment.  The purpose of the proceedings was to obtain a decision in a dispute over "civil rights and obligations", and they accordingly fall within the scope of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

30. These proceedings, which began on 26 July 1989 and ended on 22 March 1995, lasted five years and eight months.

31. The Commission recalls that the reasonableness of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and according to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties and the conduct of the authorities dealing with the case (cf. Eur. Court HR, Vernillo v. France judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, p. 12, para. 30).

32. The Government maintain that, while the case itself was of an uncomplicated nature, it was made more complicated by the applicant.  They contend that his conduct was the main reason for the delays in the case. Furthermore, the Government consider that the matter at stake  was not of genuine importance for the applicant.

33. The Commission considers that the case was not particularly complex. Moreover the applicant's conduct is not in itself sufficient to explain the length of the proceedings. The Commission notes that there have been periods of inactivity imputable to the State, in particular between 6 December 1989, when the applicant asked the District Court to request observations from the Swedish Metal Workers' Union, and 27 June 1990, when the court decided to ask for such observations, and between 20 June 1991, when the applicant submitted a statement to the court, and 11 February 1992, when that statement was forwarded to the defendant company. The Commission finds it difficult to accept that it should have required more than six months for the District Court to take the procedural decision to request observations from the union and more than seven months to perform the simple procedural act of communicating the applicant's statement to the opposite party. In any case the Government have not provided any convincing explanations for these delays.

34. The Commission reaffirms that it is for Contracting States to organise their legal systems in such a way that their courts can guarantee the right of everyone to obtain a final decision on disputes relating to civil rights and obligations within a reasonable time (cf. Eur. Court HR, Vocaturo judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 206-C, p. 32, para. 17).

35. In the light of the criteria established by case-law and having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Commission considers that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.

CONCLUSION

36. The Commission concludes, by 11 votes to 4, that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

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

      Secretary                                 President

to the Second Chamber                     of the Second Chamber

(Or. English)

DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS G.H. THUNE,

MM F. MARTINEZ, P. LORENZEN and E.A. ALKEMA

We have voted against the conclusion of the majority in the present case.

Admittedly, it was unfortunate that it took five years and eight months to reach a final decision in this rather uncomplicated case.  We consider, however, that the main responsibility for the delays in the case rests with the applicant himself.  Having regard to the criteria established by the Convention organs in assessing the reasonableness of the length of legal proceedings, we therefore find no violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention in the present case.