Search
document

Document text Analytics

S. v. SWEDEN

Doc ref: 16227/90 • ECHR ID: 001-940

Document date: July 8, 1991

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

S. v. SWEDEN

Doc ref: 16227/90 • ECHR ID: 001-940

Document date: July 8, 1991

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 16227/90

by S.

against Sweden

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber)

sitting in private on 8 July 1991, the following members being present:

MM. S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. WEITZEL

H.G. SCHERMERS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Mr. F. MARTINEZ RUIZ

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

Mr. K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Second 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 20 May 1987

by S. against Sweden and registered on 28 February 1990

under file No. 16227/90;

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

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent

Government on 21 February 1991 and the observations in reply submitted

by the applicant on 24 April 1991;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

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

summarised as follows.

The applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1926 and resident

at Pajala. He is a reindeer breeder by profession. Before the

Commission the applicant is represented by Mr. Johan Cahp, a lawyer

practising in Stockholm.

The applicant's request for a permit to keep 400 reindeer was

partly refused by the Agricultural Committee (lantbruksnämnden) of the

County of Norrbotten on 15 January 1986, in that the Committee granted

him a permit to keep 100 reindeer. The permit was limited until the

end of 1987. Thereafter the applicant should reduce the number of

reindeer to 30 within a period of two years. The applicant appealed

to the National Board of Agriculture (lantbruksstyrelsen), which

rejected his appeal on 21 November 1986. The applicant's further

appeal to the Government was rejected on 29 January 1987. The

Government noted that the National Board had made a decision of

principle not to grant permits to individuals over 65 years of age and

that the applicant attained that age in 1987.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that he did not have access to a

tribunal satisfying the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention for the determination of his request to keep 400 reindeer.

He alleges that a group of reindeer breeders unlawfully were granted

permits to keep reindeer and that this is the reason why his request

was partly refused.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 20 May 1987 and registered

on 28 February 1990.

On 7 November 1990 the Commission decided to bring the

application to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite

them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of

the application.

The Government submitted their observations on 21 February

1991 and the applicant's observations in reply were submitted on

24 April 1991.

THE LAW

The application concerns an alleged violation of Article 6

para. 1 (Art. 6-1) first sentence of the Convention in that the

Swedish legal system did not allow the applicant to have his request

for a permit to carry on licensed reindeer herding tried by a tribunal

meeting the requirements of the above provision which reads:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or

of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to

a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an

independent and impartial tribunal established by law...."

The Commission has taken cognizance of the parties

submissions. After a preliminary examination of the case the

Commission finds that the application concerns a serious issue which

must be examined on the merits. The application cannot therefore be

rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of

Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention. No other reason for

declaring the application inadmissible has been established.

For these reasons, the Commission unanimously

DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE

without prejudging the merits of the case.

Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber

(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant