Search
document

Document text Analytics

S.I.N. v. SWEDEN

Doc ref: 24955/94 • ECHR ID: 001-2738

Document date: February 28, 1996

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

S.I.N. v. SWEDEN

Doc ref: 24955/94 • ECHR ID: 001-2738

Document date: February 28, 1996

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 24955/94

by S.I.N.

against Sweden

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 28 February 1996, the following members being present:

Mrs. G.H. THUNE, Acting President

MM. H. DANELIUS

G. JÖRUNDSSON

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

F. MARTINEZ

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

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 3 June 1993 by

S.I.N. against Sweden and registered on 22 August 1994 under file

No. 24955/94;

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 is a Swedish citizen, born in 1947, and residing

in Karlstad.

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

summarised as follows.

The applicant is the owner of the house and land known as

Semlan 6 in Karlstad. In 1989 the applicant noticed that there was

mould in the house.

On 21 April 1989 the applicant applied for financial assistance

for the repair of his house from the Fund for Humidity and Mould Damage

(fonden för fukt- och mögelskador).

By virtue of section 1 of the 1985 Decree on the State Fund for

repairing humidity and mould damage in small houses (SFS 1985:1119

Förordning om den statliga fonden för avhjälpande av fukt- och

mögelskador i småhus, m.m.), hereinafter "the 1985 Decree", the

relevant financial assistance may be granted within the limits of the

financial means of the State Fund.

On 18 December 1991 the Board of the Fund (fondstyrelsen),

hereinafter "the Board", granted the applicant's application and

offered the applicant assistance for certain measures it found

necessary in order to remove the mould. After the applicant had invited

tenders from three firms the Board decided, on 11 June 1992, to finance

his repair costs up to SEK 159,075. A further SEK 27,900 remained

payable by the applicant.

The applicant further requested that he be compensated for

additional consumption of electricity during the repairs. On

2 December 1992 the Board rejected his request. No appeal lay against

the Board's decision.

The applicant requested the Board to re-examine his request for

compensation for additional electricity consumption and further

requested the Board to pay him SEK 516 for wallpaper and to pay the

inspection provided for the purposes of the guarantee.

On 8 June 1994 the Board refused to change its decision of

2 December 1992 and rejected the applicant's additional requests. As

regards the wallpaper the Board stated that the relevant costs were

caused by a mistake made by the firm and that the firm had agreed to

reimburse part of the costs. The Board found that the dispute was

between the applicant and the firm. Furthermore, the Board stated that

the 1985 Decree did not regulate the extent to which the Fund finances

repair costs. The Board found that the inspection did not constitute

a cost which the Board should finance. No appeal lay against the

Board's decision.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains, under Article 6 of the Convention, that

his right to a fair hearing was violated since the decision of the

Board could not be appealed against to a tribunal. He submits that the

State should bear all the costs caused by the repair to his house. He

further complains that he did not have an effective remedy before a

national authority and invokes Articles 13 and 17 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that his requests for financial

assistance for the repair of his house were not dealt with by a

tribunal.

In so far as relevant Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention reads as follows:

"1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations

..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing ... by an independent

and impartial tribunal established by law."

The Commission recalls that in order for Article 6 (Art. 6) of

the Convention to apply to the proceedings in question it must first

ascertain whether there was a dispute over a right which can be said,

at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law (cf.,

for example, Eur. Court H.R., Masson and Van Zon judgment of

28 September 1995, Series A no. 327, paras. 48-52).

The Commission recalls that under Swedish law the relevant Board

granted financial assistance for repairing houses that had been damaged

by mould. The Board granted the support only as far as means in the

Fund for the Humidity and Mould Damage allowed. The Commission also

recalls that the Board had granted the applicant financial assistance

up to SEK 159,075. In the present case the dispute concerned the

possibility of obtaining additional support. However, the Board was not

here dealing with any right of the applicant, as the Board indeed

stated.

In view of the above the Commission finds that the applicant's

claims did not concern a "right" which could arguably be said to be

recognised under Swedish law and that Article 6 (Art. 6) therefore does

not apply to the relevant proceedings.

It follows that this part of the application is incompatible

ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and must be

rejected under Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

2. The applicant further complains, under Article 13 (Art. 13) of

the Convention, that he did not have an effective remedy before a

national authority. He also invokes Article 17 (Art. 17) of the

Convention.

As regards Articles 13 and 17 (Art. 13, 17) of the Convention,

the Commission finds that the applicant's reference to these provisions

amount in substance to the same complaint as that made under Article

6 (Art. 6) of the Convention. The Commission, having regard to its

findings above, considers that no separate issue arises under Articles

13 or 17 (Art. 13, 17) of the Convention.

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, by a majority,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary Acting President

to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber

(M.-T. SCHOEPFER) (G.H. THUNE)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant