Search
document

Document text Analytics

GASPER v. SWEDEN

Doc ref: 14098/88 • ECHR ID: 001-786

Document date: December 10, 1990

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

GASPER v. SWEDEN

Doc ref: 14098/88 • ECHR ID: 001-786

Document date: December 10, 1990

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 14098/88

by Roy GASPER

against Sweden

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 10 December 1990, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ RUIZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission.

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 May 1988

by Roy GASPER and others against Sweden and registered on 5 August 1988

under file No. 14098/88;

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

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

The applicants are the following:

1. Roy Gasper, a Swedish citizen born in 1940 and resident in Malmö,

2. Lars-Erik Hjelm, a Swedish citizen born in 1935 and resident

in Malmö,

3. Stig Nissen, a Swedish citizen born in 1946 and resident

at Vintrie.

Before the Commission the applicants are represented by

Mr. Göran Ravnsborg, a lecturer at the University of Lund.

The applicants are taxi owners and holders of taxi licences

for the area of Malmö. The applicants have previously been members of

the Economic Association of Malmö Taxi (hereinafter "MTEA"), through

which they were affiliated to a dispatch exchange (beställningscentral)

run by MTEA.

The applicants resigned from MTEA, the first applicant on

31 December 1980, and the second and third applicants on 31 December

1981. They thereby lost their automatic subscription to the Malmö

dispatch exchange. The applicants unsuccessfully applied to join the

dispatch exchange as independent subscribers.

On 22 June 1983, they lodged an application with the County

Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen) of the County of Malmöhus to

de-monopolise the dispatch exchange and to declare it open to

everybody to establish a common taxi dispatch exchange.

On 5 December 1983, the County Administrative Board rejected

the applicants' application. Its decision was quashed by the Council

of Transportation (transportrådet) for formal reasons and the

application was sent back for re-consideration. On 19 June 1984, the

Board again rejected the application. The applicants' appeal to the

Council of Transportation was rejected on 20 November 1984.

The applicants appealed to the Government. The first

applicant later withdrew his appeal. On 26 November 1987, the

Government struck off the first applicant's appeal and decided not to

take any action with regard to the other applicants' appeals. In their

decision, the Government noted inter alia that the common dispatch

exchange for the area in question was run by the Taxi Central of the

Malmö limited liability company since 1986 and that taxi orders were

given to the second and third applicant by the Taxi Central on the

basis of an agreement between Roys Taxi Economic Association, of which

the applicants are members. They further noted that Roys Taxi had

applied to the County Administrative Board for the establishment of a

supplementary taxi dispatch exchange, but that the question had not

yet been decided.

Before the Commission the applicants allege a violation of

their effective right to negative freedom of association in that they

cannot form a common dispatch exchange. They invoke Article 11 in

conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. They also complain

that their claims were dealt with in an administrative process and

invoke Article 6 para. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention. Finally,

the applicants complain that the refusal to withdraw MTEA's monopoly

was in violation of Article 17 of the Convention.

The Commission has examined the applicants' separate

complaints as they have been submitted by them. However, after

considering the case as a whole in the light of the contents of

Government's decision, the Commission finds that it does not disclose

any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms invoked by

the applicants.

It follows that the application is as a whole manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the

Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission by a majority.

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant