Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 14062/88

by M.D. and M.D.

against Sweden

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 10 April 1991, the following members being present:

MM. S. TRECHSEL, President of the Chamber

G. SPERDUTI

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. WEITZEL

H.G. SCHERMERS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Mr. F. MARTINEZ

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 18 February

1988 by M.D. and M.D. against Sweden and registered on 26

July 1988 under file No. 14062/88;

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 17 May and 16 August 1990 and the observations submitted

in reply by the applicant on 5 July, 9 October and 5 December 1990;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

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

summarised as follows.

The applicants are Swedish citizens, born in 1955 and 1938

respectively. They are married and reside at S., Austria.

The present application concerns two different sets of civil

proceedings involving the applicants.

I

By judgment of the Labour Court (Arbetsdomstolen) of 16

February 1983, the applicants were obliged to pay damages to two of

their former employees, amounting to approximately 38,000 Swedish

crowns. This made the applicants institute, on 18 February 1983,

proceedings against the former employees before the District Court

(tingsrätt) of Mora, claiming that they had caused damage to the

applicants by giving incorrect information or failing to tell the

truth in the previous case. On 14 November 1983 the parties were

called to attend an oral preparatory session at Malung on 15 December

1983. The applicants were opposed to the session taking place at

Malung and accordingly they did not appear. On 15 December 1983, the

District Court pronounced judgment by default (tredskodom) as the

applicants had failed to appear in court although they had been

properly summoned. On 11 January 1984 the applicants asked for the

proceedings to be resumed, and on 8 November 1985 the parties were

accordingly called to an oral preparatory session on 5 December 1985

during which the applicants' claim for damages was reduced to the

symbolic sum of 1 Swedish crown.

The case was examined again by the District Court of Mora on

3 October 1986. After hearing the parties' arguments, and after an

evaluation of the information and documents submitted, the District

Court rejected the applicants' claim for damages and costs were

awarded against them. Judgment was pronounced on 31 October 1986.

On 18 November 1986 the applicants appealed against the

judgment to the Svea Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt) which asked the

parties to file written submissions.

Having obtained the necessary written submissions from the

parties, the Court of Appeal pronounced judgment in the case on

9 September 1990. The Court upheld the judgment of the District

Court.

On 5 October 1990 the applicants asked for leave to appeal to

the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen). However, on 6 November 1990 the

Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.

II

In 1983 a dispute arose between the applicants and certain

former employees and proceedings commenced in the District Court

of Mora on 16 March 1983. Before the District Court each party

claimed damages from the other owing to alleged irregularities in a

labour contract. On 15 December 1983 the District Court pronounced

judgment by default against the applicants as they had failed to

appear in court when summoned to do so. On 27 December 1983 the

applicants asked for the proceedings to be resumed and on 8 November

1985 the parties were called to attend an oral preparatory session on

5 December 1985. In March 1987 the parties were called to attend the

main hearing which took place on 1 and 2 June 1987. After hearing the

parties' arguments and after an evaluation of the information and

documents submitted, the District Court found against the applicants,

who were ordered to pay a total of approximately 30,000 Swedish crowns

plus interest to the former employees.

On 8 July 1987 the applicants appealed against the judgment to

the Labour Court which, after obtaining written observations from the

parties, held a hearing in the case on 27 September 1988. In its

judgment of 2 November 1988 the Labour Court upheld the judgment of

the District Court.

COMPLAINTS

As regards both part I and part II, the applicants complain

that their civil cases were not determined within a reasonable time.

They invoke Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 18 February 1988 and

registered on 26 July 1988.

On 5 March 1990 the Commission decided to adjourn the

examination of the application as far as it concerned the length of

proceedings as set out in parts I and II above and to declare

inadmissible the remainder of the application. It was furthermore

decided to bring the adjourned part of the application to the notice

of the respondent Government and to invite them to submit written

observations on the admissibility and merits.

The Government's observations on admissibility and merits were

submitted on 17 May 1990 and the applicants' observations in reply

were submitted on 5 July 1990.

Supplementary observations were submitted by the Government on

16 August 1990 and supplementary observations in reply were submitted

by the applicants on 9 October and 5 December 1990.

On 8 January 1991 the Commission decided to refer the

application to the Second Chamber.

THE LAW

The applicants complain of the length of the proceedings as

described above under part I and part II. They invoke Article 6 para.

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

The Commission notes that it is undisputed that the

proceedings related to civil rights and obligations and came within

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

inter alia recognises that everyone is entitled to a hearing within a

reasonable time.

As far as the periods to be taken into consideration are

concerned, the Commission notes that the proceedings relating to

part I of this application commenced on 18 February 1983, when the

applicants instituted proceedings in the District Court of Mora, and

ended with the decision of the Supreme Court on 6 November 1990. Thus

these proceedings lasted approximately 7 years and 8 1/2 months.

As regards part II of the present application, the proceedings in the

District Court of Mora commenced on 16 March 1983 and ended with the

judgment of the Labour Court of 2 November 1988. These proceedings

accordingly lasted approximately 5 years and 7 1/2 months.

The applicants argue that these periods cannot be regarded as

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

Convention. The Government, on the other hand, have submitted that the

length of the proceedings in question was in particular due to the

applicants' conduct and was therefore reasonable.

The European Court of Human Rights and the Commission have

consistently held that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings

coming within the scope of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention must be assessed in each case according to its particular

circumstances and on the basis of the following criteria: the

complexity of the case as regards the facts and the law, and the

conduct of the applicant and the competent authorities.

Applying these criteria, and taking into account the

circumstances of the present case, the Commission considers that the

periods of time which elapsed in the two sets of proceedings raise

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

requiring an examination of the merits of the case.

Consequently, the Commission considers that these complaints

are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para.

2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring the

complaints inadmissible have 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)

Menu

M.D. ; M.D. v. SWEDEN

M.D. ; M.D. v. SWEDEN

LEXI