AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                       Application No. 20402/92

                       by Bror SPETZ and others

                       against Sweden

      The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 12 October 1994, the following members being present:

           MM.   S. TRECHSEL, President

                 H. DANELIUS

                 G. JÖRUNDSSON

                 J.-C. SOYER

                 H.G. SCHERMERS

           Mrs.  G.H. THUNE

           MM.   F. MARTINEZ

                 L. LOUCAIDES

                 J.-C. GEUS

                 M.A. NOWICKI

                 I. CABRAL BARRETO

                 J. MUCHA

                 D. SVÁBY

           Mr.   K. ROGGE, 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 11 July 1992 by

Bror SPETZ and Others against Sweden and registered on 31 July 1992

under file No. 20402/92;

      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

a.    The particular circumstances of the case

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

summarised as follows.

      The applicants are 1) a Swedish nonconformist congregation in

Stockholm, Södermalms Fria Församling (the Congregation), 2) four

pastors of the Congregation, Bror Spetz, Bertil Swärd, Carl-Gustaf

Severin and Klas Lindberg, born in 1926, 1943, 1953 and 1954

respectively, and 3) a couple, Andreas and Monika Mannerström, and

their daughter, Miriam, born in 1968 and 1966 and on 5 May 1992

respectively. All individual applicants are Swedish citizens. Before

the Commission the applicants are represented by Mrs. Siv Westerberg,

a lawyer practising in Gothenburg, Sweden.

      The Congregation was founded some 60 years ago. It considers

itself to be, and to have always been, an independent congregation

within the Pentecostal Movement (Pingströrelsen). It has four pastors,

the above-mentioned applicants, and about 1900 members.

      By Government decision of 12 September 1952, the Pentecostal

Movement was granted a right to celebrate marriages (vigselrätt). Since

the Pentecostal Movement consists of several independent congregations

which do not have a common administration, a special Marriage Board

(vigselnämnd) was set up within the Movement to authorise celebrants

(vigselförrättare). According to the decision, only officials of

Pentecostal congregations with specified qualifications were to be

authorised. The decision further recalled that, according to a 1951

Royal Decree, authorised officials must, before conducting any marriage

ceremonies, obtain a certificate showing their competence from the

County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen).

      After having been authorised by the Marriage Board, the applicant

pastors received their certificates on 7 July 1955 (Spetz),

14 December 1976 (Swärd), 25 June 1979 (Severin) and 16 June 1987

(Lindberg).

      By decision of 8 December 1988, the Marriage Board revoked as

from 1 July 1989 the right of the Congregation to celebrate marriages

and thereby also the applicant pastors' authorisations to conduct

marriage ceremonies. The pastors were requested to return their

certificates of competence to the Marriage Board. According to the

Board's opinion, the Congregation and its pastors had shown, in word

and deed, by actively supporting breakaway factions, that they did not

consider themselves to be part of the Pentecostal Movement.

      In a reply to the Marriage Board, the Congregation stated that

it did not consider the Board competent to revoke the Congregation's

right to celebrate marriages or the pastors' authorisations, and that

the pastors did not intend to return their certificates.

      The Marriage Board then requested the County Administrative Board

to revoke the certificates. By decision of 19 April 1989, the County

Administrative Board refused the request. It stated that neither the

1951 Royal Decree nor the 1952 Government decision mentioned any

grounds on which a celebrant's authorisation to conduct marriage

ceremonies could be revoked, that the revocation of such an

authorisation was to be regarded as an exercise of public authority,

which should have a basis in law, and that the revocation of

certificates had not been requested because the pastors no longer had

the qualifications necessary according to said Government decision, but

because the Congregation and its pastors could not be considered as

members of the Pentecostal Movement. The County Administrative Board

concluded that there was no basis in law to revoke the certificates as

requested. The Marriage Board appealed to the Government.

      By way of a note on his certificate, the Marriage Board had

indicated that Bertil Swärd's authorisation was revoked as of 1 July

1989. As he was due to conduct a marriage ceremony, he asked the County

Administrative Board to explain whether he was still competent to do

so. On 8 June 1989, the County Administrative Board replied that he had

the right to conduct ceremonies until the revocation matter had been

finally settled by the Government. Before the matter had thus been

settled the four pastors of the Congregation had conducted 21

ceremonies, one of them on 9 September 1989 between the applicants

Andreas and Monika Mannerström.

      By decision of 31 January 1991, the Government found that the

pastors' right to conduct marriage ceremonies had been revoked by the

decision of the Marriage Board and that this decision was final. The

Government stated that by the decision of 1952 a power to exercise

public authority had been conferred on the Marriage Board. The

Government further noted that the Marriage Board's competence to

authorise celebrants was limited to officials of the Pentecostal

Movement, that, as a consequence, the Board had to make sure that a

prospective celebrant was a member of a Pentecostal congregation, and

that, as a further consequence, an official of a congregation that no

longer belonged to the Movement could not invoke an authorisation by

the Marriage Board. Recalling that, in accordance with Section 2 of the

1951 Royal Decree, the Marriage Board had to notify the County

Administrative Board about the expiration of an authorisation, the

Government further noted that the Marriage Board had to examine,

whenever there were reasons for it, whether the conditions for an

authorisation were still met, and, if that was not the case, take the

appropriate decision.

      In two letters to the Congregation the Ministry of Justice

explained that, as a consequence of the Government's decision,

marriages conducted by the four pastors since 1 July 1989 were invalid.

The Ministry, however, noted that, according to Chapter 4, Section 2,

subsection 3 of the Code on Marriages (Äktenskapsbalken), the

Government may, under special circumstances, declare valid otherwise

invalid marriages. The Minister of Justice expressed her deep concern

that the negative effects for the couples in question be eliminated and

promised that applications for such declarations would be examined

favourably. Only the man or the woman concerned or, in case one of them

has died, the heirs of the deceased may apply for a declaration. An

application by the Congregation for a declaration that the 21 marriage

ceremonies conducted were valid was, accordingly, rejected by the

Government on 8 May 1991. Only four of the 21 couples in question have

applied to the Government for a declaration. Andreas and Monika

Mannerström have not applied. The four applications have been granted,

and the marriages have been declared valid as from the date of the

ceremonies.      The Congregation and the pastor Bror Spetz applied to

the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten) for a review of the

Government's decision under the Act on Judicial Review of Certain

Administrative Decisions (Lagen om rättsprövning av vissa

förvaltningsbeslut, 1988:205 - "the 1988 Act"). They alleged that the

Marriage Board had been given only a limited right to exercise public

authority which did not include the competence to revoke authorisations

to conduct marriage ceremonies, and that, in any case, there must lie

an appeal from the Marriage Board's decision as it is equivalent to a

decision to expel members from a congregation, a decision from which

an appeal lies according to the Freedom of Religion Act

(Religionsfrihetslag, 1951:680). Since, as a consequence of the

Government's decision, the marriages conducted since 1 July 1989 were

invalid, they further submitted that the Government were not empowered

to declare a marriage invalid and that the decision, especially with

regard to its retroactive character, violated the provisions of the

Code on Marriages concerning the requirements of a valid marriage.

Finally, they claimed that the Government had not examined the merits

of the appeal against the County Administrative Board's decision.

      On 18 February 1992 the Supreme Administrative Court refused to

examine the application. The Court stated that, as the application did

not concern any matter referred to in Chapter 8, Sections 2 or 3 of the

Instrument of Government (Regeringsformen), the Court was not competent

to examine it under the 1988 Act.

      The Congregation later requested the Government to declare their

decision of 31 January 1991 not to have a retroactive effect, thereby

making the 21 marriage ceremonies valid. The Congregation further

requested to be granted a right to celebrate marriages. By decision of

15 April 1992, the Government stated that the previous decision did not

contain an examination of the merits of the case, but only a

confirmation that the Marriage Board's decision was final, and that,

accordingly, the Government were not empowered to examine the

Congregation's first request. The Government further noted, as a piece

of information, that the certificates of competence issued by the

County Administrative Board were of no independent importance as to the

pastors' right to conduct marriage ceremonies, a matter which was not

to be examined by the County Administrative Board, but by the Marriage

Board. Finally, by decision of 23 April 1992, the Government rejected

the Congregation's request to be granted a right to celebrate

marriages.

b.    Relevant domestic law

      The provisions on how marriages are contracted are included in

Chapter 4 of the Code on Marriages. Section 3 reads in relevant parts

as follows:

(translation)

      "Competent to conduct marriage ceremonies is

           1. a clergyman of the Church of Sweden,

           2. a priest or other official of another church, if the

      Goverment have granted the church a right to celebrate marriages

      and the County Administrative Board has issued a certificate of

      competence for that priest or official,

      ..."

      Further provisions concerning marriage ceremonies are to be found

in the 1951 Royal Decree with Certain Provisions on Celebrants of Other

Churches than the Church of Sweden (Kunglig kungörelse med vissa

bestämmelser ang. vigselförrättare inom annat trossamfund än svenska

kyrkan, 1951:703). Sections 1 and 2 of the Decree read, in so far as

relevant, as follows:

(translation)

      Section 1:

      "If the Government have authorised that marriages may be

      celebrated within a certain church by its priests or otherwise

      by officials of that church, such priest or official may not

      exercise his competence to conduct marriage ceremonies before the

      County Administrative Board of the county in which the church is

      located, on application by the church, has issued a certificate

      on his competence to conduct marriage ceremonies within the

      church."

      Section 2:

      "If a celebrant, referred to in Section 1, dies, or if his

      competence to conduct marriage ceremonies otherwise expires, the

      church is obliged to notify the County Administrative Board

      thereof without delay."

      The 1951 Decree was replaced by new legislation in 1987, but its

Section 2 is still applicable to rights to celebrate marriages granted

before 1988.

COMPLAINTS

1.    The applicants Andreas and Monika Mannerström claim that their

right to marry and to found a family and their right to peaceful

enjoyment of their possessions have been violated. Together with their

daughter Miriam they also claim that their right to respect for their

family life has been violated. They assert that, as a consequence of

the Government's decision of 31 January 1991, the parents are not

considered to be married and their daughter is thus considered to be

born out of wedlock. Consequently, the parents do not have any right

to each other's property, they do not inherit from one another and they

cannot conclude a marital settlement. Furthermore, the father does not

have legal custody of his daughter. The applicants therefore claim that

they have been denied the legal security of a marriage and invoke

Articles 8 and 12 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

2.    All applicants claim that they have been denied their rights to

freedom of conscience and religion and to freedom of expression in

violation of Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention. They submit that the

Marriage Board's decision of 8 December 1988 to revoke the right of the

Congregation to celebrate marriages and, as a consequence, the

applicant pastors' authorisations to conduct marriage ceremonies is a

means of punishment directed at the applicants' Christian faith and the

work that has been carried out within the Congregation. The pastors

have thus, because of their position on certain questions of faith,

been prohibited from exercising part of their profession.

3.    All applicants further complain that their right to a hearing by

a tribunal has been denied in violation of Articles 6 and 13 of the

Convention. They maintain that the Government have conferred on the

Marriage Board a power to exercise public authority without providing

for legal remedies against the Board's decisions. Andreas, Monika and

Miriam Mannerström claim that they have a right to a court hearing as

regards the alleged violation of their right to family life. The

applicant pastors claim that their right to practise their profession,

which they consider to be a civil right, has been violated and that,

in the determination of this right, they are entitled to a court

hearing.

THE LAW

1.    The applicants Andreas, Monika and Miriam Mannerström claim that

their rights to respect for their family life, to marry, to found a

family and to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under

Articles 8 and 12 (Art. 8, 12) of the Convention and Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) have been violated, since, as a consequence of

the Government's decision of 31 January 1991, the marriage between

Andreas and Monika Mannerström is not considered to be valid. The

invoked provisions read in relevant parts as follows:

      Article 8 (Art. 8):

      "1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family

      life, his home and his correspondence.

      ..."

      Article 12 (Art. 12):

      "Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and

      to found a family, according to the national laws governing the

      exercise of this right."

      Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1):

      "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful

      enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his

      possessions except in the public interest and subject to the

      conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of

      international law.

      ..."

      The Commission notes that Andreas, Monika and Miriam Mannerström

have not been parties to any proceedings and that the Government's

decision of 31 January 1991, which has brought about the alleged

violations of their Convention rights, has been taken more than six

months before the introduction of the present application. The question

therefore arises whether these applicants have complied with the

conditions under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention as to the

exhaustion of domestic remedies and the observance of the six months

period. The Commission also notes that Miriam Mannerström was not born

at the time of the different decisions of the present case. Thus, the

further question arises whether she can claim to be a victim within the

meaning of Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1) of the Convention. However,

the Commission does not have to resolve these issues, as this part of

the application is in any event manifestly ill-founded for the

following reasons.    The Commission recalls that the alleged

violations now in question all derive from the fact that, following the

Government's decision of 31 January 1991, the marriage between Andreas

and Monika Mannerström, like other marriages conducted within the

Congregation since 1 July 1989, is not considered to be valid.

      The Commission notes that the Government, in accordance with the

relevant provisions of the Code on Marriages, have invited the couples

concerned to apply for declarations that their marriages are valid and

expressed that such applications will be examined favourably. The four

applications lodged have all been granted, and those four marriages

have been declared valid as from the date of the marriage ceremonies.

      The Commission, recalling that the right to marry under Article

12 (Art. 12) of the Convention is subject to the national laws

governing the exercise of this right, finds that Andreas and Monika

Mannerström, by applying to the Government, could have had their

marriage declared valid. The Commission, therefore, considers that the

present circumstances do not disclose any appearance of a violation of

their right to marry. The alleged violations of their and Miriam

Mannerström's rights under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention and

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) are all consequences of the invalid

marriage. Consequently, the Commission further considers that the case

does not disclose any appearance of a violation of these provisions

either.

      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.

2.    All applicants claim that their rights to freedom of conscience

and religion and to freedom of expression under Articles 9 and 10

(Art. 9, 10) of the Convention have been violated by the Marriage

Board's decision of 8 December 1988.

      Article 9 (Art. 9) reads as follows:

      "1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and

      religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or

      belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and

      in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in

      worship, teaching, practice and observance.

      2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject

      only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are

      necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public

      safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or

      for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

      Article 10 (Art. 10) reads as follows:

      "1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right

      shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart

      information and ideas without interference by public authority

      and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent

      States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or

      cinema enterprises.

      2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it

      duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,

      conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law

      and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of

      national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for

      the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health

      or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of

      others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in

      confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of

      the judiciary."

      The Commission recalls that the Congregation and Bror Spetz have

applied to the Supreme Administrative Court for a review of the

Government's decision of 31 January 1991. The Court has, however, found

that it lacks competence to deal with the application under the 1988

Act. The question, therefore, arises whether the application to the

Supreme Administrative Court has constituted an effective remedy and,

as the present application has been introduced on 11 July 1992, whether

the Congregation and the applicant pastors have complied with the six

months period laid down in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention. The

Commission need, however, not resolve these issues, as this complaint

is in any event manifestly ill-founded for the reasons given below.

      The Commission recalls its constant case-law according to which

Article 9 (Art. 9) does not oblige the States to ensure that churches

within their jurisdiction grant religious freedom to their members and

servants (cf., e.g., No. 7374/76, Dec. 8.3.76, D.R. 5 p. 157, and

No. 12356/86, Dec. 8.9.88, D.R. 57 p. 172). A church is free to enforce

uniformity in religious matters, and it is not obliged to accept a

pastor as its servant or to allow him to carry out certain duties. The

pastor's right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion vis-à-vis

the church is guaranteed by his right to leave the church.

      In the present case, the Marriage Board, an organ of the

Pentecostal Movement, has revoked rights previously bestowed upon the

Congregation and its pastors on the ground that, in the Board's

opinion, they have left the Movement.

      As regards Andreas, Monika and Miriam Mannerström, they have not

specified in what way their rights under Articles 9 and 10 (Art. 9, 10)

have been violated other than the fact that Andreas and Monika

Mannerström's marriage, conducted by one of the Congregation's pastors,

is not considered to be valid. It is true that after the Marriage

Board's decision they could not validly be married by the said pastors.

However, marriage is not considered simply as a form of expression of

conscience and religion, but is governed by the specific provisions of

Article 12 (Art. 12) which refers to the national laws governing the

exercise of the right to marry (cf. No. 6167/73, Dec. 18.12.74,

D.R. 1 p. 64, and No. 11579/85, Dec. 7.7.86, D.R. 48 p. 253). The

Commission, therefore, considers that Andreas, Monika and Miriam

Mannerström's rights to freedom of conscience and religion and to

freedom of expression have not been affected by any decisions taken in

the present case.

      As regards the other applicants, the Commission finds that the

Pentecostal Movement, in the examination of the present complaint, is

to be considered as a church. The respondent State have been under no

obligation to ensure that the Movement accepts the Congregation or its

pastors as its members or grants them any rights deriving from the 1952

Government decision to grant the Movement a right to celebrate

marriages. In deciding to revoke the rights previously bestowed upon

the Congregation and the pastors, the Marriage Board has acted as an

organ of the Movement. As there is no showing that the Congregation or

the pastors have been prevented from manifesting their religion or

beliefs or from leaving the Movement, neither the Board's decision nor

any other acts or decisions by the Movement or State authorities have

interfered with the exercise of the Congregation's and the pastors'

rights under Article 9 (Art. 9).

      As regards the Congregation's and its pastors' complaint that

there has been a breach of their right to freedom of expression as

guaranteed by Article 10 (Art. 10), the Commission considers that the

same reasoning applies mutatis mutandis to the applicants' complaint

under this Article as to the complaint under Article 9 (Art. 9) (cf.

No. 12356/86, referred to above). Accordingly, there has been no

interference with the applicants' rights as guaranteed by Article 10

(Art. 10).

      It follows that the applicants' complaints under Articles 9 and

10 (Art. 9, 10) of the Convention are manifestly ill-founded within the

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

3.    All applicants claim that they are entitled to a hearing by a

tribunal regarding their complaints against the decision by the

Marriage Board. They invoke Articles 6 and 13 (Art. 6, 13) of the

Convention.

      Article 6 (Art. 6) reads in relevant parts as follows:

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

      everyone is entitled to a ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal

      ..."

      Article 13 (Art. 13) reads as follows:

      "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this

      Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a

      national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been

      committed by persons acting in an official capacity."

      The dispute in the present case concerns the Marriage Board's

revocation of the Congregation's right to celebrate marriages and the

pastors' rights to conduct marriage ceremonies. In determining whether

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) has been violated, the Commission must

first consider whether the dispute involves a determination of the

applicants' civil rights within the meaning of this provision.

      The applicability of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) depends on

whether there was a dispute over a "right" which can be said, at least

on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law, and, if so,

whether this "right" was of a "civil" character within the meaning of

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1). In particular, the dispute must be

genuine and serious, it may relate not only to the actual existence of

a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise (cf. Eur.

Court H.R., Allan Jacobsson judgment of 25 October 1989, Series A

no. 163, p. 19, paras. 66-67). As regards the question whether the

dispute relates to a civil right, a tenuous connection or remote

consequences do not suffice for the application of Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1). Civil rights must be the object -or one of the objects -

of the dispute; the result of the proceedings must be directly decisive

for such a right (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Le Compte, Van Leuven and De

Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 21, para. 47).

      The Commission recalls that Andreas, Monika and Miriam

Mannerström have not been parties to any proceedings regarding the

dispute in question, which concerned the rights of the Congregation and

its pastors. They were only indirectly affected in the way that the

marriage between Andreas and Monika Mannerström, as a consequence of

the outcome of the dispute, was considered to be invalid. In these

circumstances, the Commission finds that the decisions taken have not

been directly decisive for Andreas, Monika and Miriam Mannerström's

civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1).

      The applicant pastors maintain that the Marriage Board's decision

has violated their right to practise their profession and that it has

thus determined their civil rights. The Congregation does not state any

separate ground for finding that the Board's decision has involved a

determination of civil rights.

      The Commission recalls that disputes concerning the right to

practise a profession or to obtain a licence or an authorisation

necessary for such practice have been found to involve a determination

of civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)

(cf., e.g., Eur. Court H.R., König judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A

no. 27, pp. 31-32, paras. 91-95, and Pudas judgment of 27 October 1987,

Series A no. 125-A, p. 16, paras. 37-38).

      In the present case, however, the revocation of the

authorisations to conduct marriage ceremonies has not prevented the

pastors from practising their profession, but has merely made it

impossible for them to exercise one function of that profession.

Moreover, the revocation has not affected the possibilities for the

pastors to earn their livelihood.

      Furthermore, the Commission recalls that it has previously held

that disputes on issues of faith and religious practice do not involve

the determination of civil rights (cf. No. 7374/76, referred to above).

      For these reasons, the Commission considers that the Marriage

Board's decision has not involved any determination of the

Congregation's or the pastors' civil rights within the meaning of

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1).

      It follows that the complaints submitted under Article 6

(Art. 6) of the Convention are incompatible ratione materiae with the

provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

      As to the complaint by all the applicants under Article 13

(Art. 13) of the Convention, the Commission recalls that this provision

has been interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights as requiring

a remedy in domestic law only in respect of grievances which can be

regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (cf., e.g., Eur.

Court H.R., Boyle and Rice judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131,

p. 23, para. 52).

      Having regard to its above conclusions in respect of the

Convention complaints submitted, the Commission considers that the

applicants do not have any "arguable claims" of a violation of the

provisions invoked for these complaints. In these circumstances, the

Commission finds no appearance of a violation of Article 13 (Art. 13).

It follows that this complaint 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.

Secretary to the Second Chamber         President of the Second Chamber

           (K. ROGGE)                          (S. TRECHSEL)