Search
document

Document text Analytics

PETTERSSON v. SWEDEN

Doc ref: 31073/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3702

Document date: May 21, 1997

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 1

PETTERSSON v. SWEDEN

Doc ref: 31073/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3702

Document date: May 21, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 31073/96

by Jan PETTERSSON

against Sweden

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 21 May 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs. G.H. THUNE, President

MM. J.-C. GEUS

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

M.A. NOWICKI

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 8 April 1996 by

Jan Pettersson against Sweden and registered on 19 April 1997 under

file No. 31073/96;

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 born in 1947, resides in Borås.

Before the Commission he is represented by Mr Bela Simon, a lawyer

practising in Stockholm.

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

summarised as follows.

In 1973 the applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident. He

claimed compensation under a private traffic insurance, but could not

reach an agreement with the insurance company, Trygg-Hansa, as to the

degree of his disability and the amount of compensation to be awarded.

On 16 November 1995 the applicant, therefore, brought the dispute

before the District Court (tingsrätten) in Stockholm.

The case was assigned to the judge G.S. In addition to being a

district court judge, G.S. was also, in 1995, a substitute to the

chairman of the Accident and Health Insurance Board (Olycksfalls- och

sjukförsäkringsnämnden), established by the Swedish Association of

Insurance Companies (Sveriges Försäkringsförbund) of which Trygg-Hansa

is a member. The functions of the Board include, inter alia, giving

the respective companies advisory opinions in individual insurance

cases in which the insured do not accept the companies' decisions.

On account of G.S.'s position on the above Board, the applicant

claimed that he could not be considered impartial in the case between

the applicant and Trygg-Hansa. However, by decision of 22 January 1996

the District Court, sitting with another judge, rejected the

applicant's challenge. It noted that G.S. had not dealt with the

applicant's case in his capacity as a substitute member of the Board

and that, in any event, the Traffic Insurance Board (Trafikskade-

nämnden), of which G.S. was not a member, was responsible for giving

advisory opinions in traffic insurance cases.

On 28 February 1996 the Svea Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt), by

a final decision, rejected the applicant's appeal against the District

Court's decision.

The insurance dispute is still pending before the District Court

where, apparently, G.S. is still in charge of the case. A preparatory

hearing is scheduled for 29 May 1997.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains of the decisions to reject his challenge

against G.S. and claims that his case is not examined by an impartial

tribunal on account of this judge's position on the Accident and Health

Insurance Board. He invokes Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

THE LAW

The applicant complains of the decisions to reject his challenge

against G.S. and claims that his case is not examined by an impartial

tribunal on account of this judge's position on the Accident and Health

Insurance Board. He invokes Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:

"1. In the determination of his civil rights ..., everyone

is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an ... impartial

tribunal ..."

The Commission recalls that the dispute between the applicant and

the insurance company concerns the applicant's right to compensation

under a private insurance and thus relates to his "civil rights".

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) is therefore applicable to the dispute as

such.

The applicant claims that the dispute between him and the

insurance company is not examined by an impartial tribunal on account

of judge G.S.'s position on the Accident and Health Insurance Board.

In this respect, the Commission recalls its established case-law

that the question whether court proceedings satisfy the requirements

of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention can only be answered

by examining the proceedings as a whole, that is to say only once they

have been concluded (cf., e.g., No. 12952/87, Dec. 6.11.90, D.R. 67,

p. 175).

In the present case, the Commission recalls that the proceedings

are still pending in the District Court and that, consequently, the

development of the whole proceedings and the outcome of the case are

unknown. It thus considers that the application is, in this respect,

premature.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly

ill-founded 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 G.H. THUNE

Secretary President

to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant