Search
document

Document text Analytics

GEDIN v. SWEDEN

Doc ref: 34777/97 • ECHR ID: 001-4226

Document date: April 16, 1998

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

GEDIN v. SWEDEN

Doc ref: 34777/97 • ECHR ID: 001-4226

Document date: April 16, 1998

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 34777/97

by Peter GEDIN

against Sweden

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 16 April 1998, 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. SVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

A. ARABADJIEV

Ms M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 14 November 1996

by Peter GEDIN against Sweden and registered on 5 February 1997 under

file No. 34777/97;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, a Swedish citizen, resides in Stockholm. He is

a lawyer.

The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may

be summarised as follows.

On 22 August 1994, being the representative of B.H., the

applicant brought a medical malpractice suit against the County Council

of Malmöhus County (Malmöhus läns landsting) in the District Court

(tingsrätten) of Lund. B.H. applied for legal aid and on 9 September

1994 the court appointed the applicant as her legal aid lawyer.

Following a preparatory hearing, the judge in charge of the case

- in a letter of 12 April 1995 - questioned whether the applicant had

the necessary qualifications to represent B.H. in the case. The judge

stated that the District Court would decide whether the applicant would

be allowed to continue as her representative and legal aid lawyer.

The applicant submitted his opinion on the matter. Moreover, he

challenged the impartiality of the judge in question. By decision of

29 May 1995, the District Court, composed of its president as sole

judge, rejected that challenge.

On 11 August 1995 the District Court, composed of the president

and two other judges but not including the judge whose impartiality had

been challenged, found that the applicant had demonstrated a clear lack

of competence and judgment. Consequently, the court decided that he

would no longer be allowed to represent B.H. in the case. Further, he

was dismissed as legal aid lawyer. B.H. was given the opportunity to

name another representative.

On 10 June 1996, upon the applicant's appeal, the Court of Appeal

(hovrätten) of Skåne and Blekinge upheld the District Court's decision.

On 3 October 1996 the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) refused

the applicant leave to appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains of the decision not to allow him to

continue serving as B.H.'s representative and legal aid lawyer which

- so he alleges - effectively deprived him of the right to exercise his

profession. He claims that the District Court and the Court of Appeal

deciding on the issue were not impartial and that the issue was not

examined within a reasonable time. He invokes Article 6 of the

Convention.

THE LAW

The applicant complains that the decision to dismiss him as

representative and legal aid lawyer was not taken by an impartial

tribunal within a reasonable time. He invokes Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:

"1. In the determination of his civil rights and

obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing

within a reasonable time by an ... impartial tribunal ..."

First, the Commission has to decide whether Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) is applicable in the present case.

It is noted at the outset that the right to legal assistance in

civil rights disputes which, in certain circumstances, may exist under

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) (cf. Eur. Court HR, Airey v. Ireland

judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, pp. 14-16, para. 26) is

a right which pertains to the party to the proceedings and not to his

or her legal representative.

The question remains whether the decisions of the District Court

and the Court of Appeal involved a determination of the applicant's

civil rights. The Commission recalls that, by the impugned decisions,

the applicant was dismissed as representative and legal aid lawyer in

the case brought by him on behalf of B.H. It is true that the decisions

had certain indirect economic consequences for the applicant relating

to his right to remuneration in that particular case. However, he was

not deprived of a general right to appear before these or other courts,

nor was he barred from exercising his profession as a lawyer. In these

circumstances, the Commission considers that the decisions in question

did not involve a determination of his civil rights within the meaning

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

It follows that the application is incompatible ratione materiae

with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27

para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

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

Secretary President

to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant