Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 14220/88

by Göran RAVNSBORG

against Sweden

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 10 October 1990, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

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

J.-C. GEUS

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 12 July 1988

by Göran RAVNSBORG against Sweden and registered on 16 September 1988

under file No. 14220/88;

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

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Swedish citizen born in 1933 and resident

in Lund. The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as

follows.

The applicant is personal general proxy for his adoptive

mother K. and administrator ("god man") for his mother's friend M.

Both K. and M. became unable to care for themselves due to old age and

with the applicant's agreement K. and M. were placed in a nursing home

by the Municipality of Gothenburg. After one year in the home, K. and M.

became liable to pay a medical care fee calculated on the basis of their

net income and they received invoices from the home. The applicant

duly paid the invoices on behalf of K. and M.

The applicant later discovered that the home was a charitable

foundation. He considered that there was no provision in law for the

home to act on behalf of the Municipality and that he had paid the

medical care fees to the wrong creditor. He stopped making the

payments and instituted proceedings seeking a declaration from the

Court that the home was not the legal creditor and had no right or

lawful mandate to act on behalf of the Municipality of Gothenburg. He

also claimed repayment of fees.

Mr. F., M.'s Chief Guardian (överförmyndare), intervened to

order the applicant as M.'s administrator to continue to pay the

medical fees. The applicant refused. Mr. F. brought proceedings

seeking an order of the Court dismissing the applicant as

administrator. The Chief Guardian Board of the Municipality intervened

and Mr. F. was removed from his position as M.'s Chief Guardian.

The Chief Guardian Board asked the District Court (tings-

rätten) of Gothenburg to appoint an additional administrator to act

with the applicant in respect of K. The applicant considered this an

outrageous intervention and counterclaimed, seeking the immediate

dismissal of all the members of the Chief Guardian Board and making

very sharp comments as to the way its members performed their duties

as public trustees. In a letter to the Court, the applicant stated,

inter alia:

"As a general assessment about the Chief Guardian Board's

actions, which are strongly criticised on good grounds, it

should be stated that the Board can be described as a basket of

municipal political rotten eggs (rötägg) of different colours

but of a common denominator and super ideology, i.e. the

fascist exercise of power, in connection with which the rights

and reasonable interests of the individual municipal member -

if their existence is at all recognised in their

intoxication with power - may never involve any powerful

questioning of the demands of the collective or the absolute

right of the politician governed (politrukstyrda) subject,

such as it in each individual case is defined as to its

contents by the so called democratically ... representative

People's Court (whose official name is the Boards or Councils

of the Municipality of Gothenburg) with their manning by, to

a surprisingly high degree, local public mob or - as above -

pure rotten eggs."

On 18 May 1987, the District Court of Gothenburg, in

application of Chapter 9 Section 5 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

(rättegångsbalken), sentenced the applicant without a public hearing

to a fine of 1000 SEK for contempt of court in respect of the

statements in the above letter.

On 17 June 1987, the District Court rejected, without a public

hearing, the Chief Guardian Board's claim for an administrator as well

as the applicant's claim for the dismissal of the members of that

Board.

The applicant appealed against both the decisions of

18 May 1987 and 17 June 1987. He asked for a public hearing in

respect of his appeal against the fine for contempt of court. In his

appeal against the decision of 17 June 1987, the applicant requested

that the case be referred back to the District Court for

re-examination, including an oral hearing.

The Court of Appeal for Western Sweden (hovrätten för

Västra Sverige) on 4 November 1987 upheld the District Court's fine

and in addition held the applicant guilty of contempt of court in

respect of statements made in his appeal and imposed an additional

fine of 1000 SEK. On page 12 of his appeal, the applicant had stated:

"If the Court of Appeal would, in any respect, come to a

different judgment from what I have requested, I will of

course appeal, in order to be able to submit an application

immediately to the European Commission and to the Human

Rights Committee in Geneva respectively. The risk is

extremely small that a generally lethargic and, as a result

of its members' many years of indoctrination against human

rights in the Government Offices, lax final instance will

grant leave to appeal in a case like this."

The Court of Appeal stated that a hearing was not necessary in

the case. In respect of the applicant's allegation that the District

Court had acted wrongly when not giving him the opportunity of

commenting when the issue of convicting him of contempt of court had

arisen, the Court of Appeal found that this omission was in accordance

with case-law and legal doctrine when the question of punishment for

contempt of court in a letter to a Court had arisen. There was thus no

fault on the District Court's part in that respect.

In another decision of the same date, the Court of Appeal

dismissed the applicant's appeal against the merits of the decision of

17 June 1987. The Court found that, with regard to the appointment of

an administrator, the District Court's decision was not to the

detriment of the applicant or K. This part of the appeal could

therefore not be examined. The Court also found that the applicant

and K. had no right to appeal against the decision not to dismiss the

members of the Board. Finally, the Court found that the applicant had

made improper statements in his letter of appeal and fined him another

1000 SEK. The applicant had stated on page 7 of his appeal:

"The fact that we ... ask that the case be referred back to

the District Court for a further examination does not imply

that we, even for a moment, would accept that the case

... once again is dominated by, for instance, the Chief Judge

Sven Wieselgren's far-reaching fascist way of presiding with

the court's ... gross partiality in favour of municipal interests,

collegiate corruption, and abuse of public authority through

autocracy, shadow fear and dark man principles. Over all,

our experience of the generally autocratic deeply partial

implementation of norms by the District Court in favour of the

municipality, as it is performed by one Stefan

Wikmark, one Sven Ordqvist, one Kenneth Ström and one

Sven Wieselgren ... is such that we will ask for the

composition of a special District Court in which the President

is chosen from outside the Gothenburg District Court."

The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court (högsta domstolen)

which refused leave to appeal on 5 January 1988.

Chapter 9 Section 5 of the Code of Judicial Procedure provided

as follows at the relevant time:

(Swedish)

"Den som vid sammanträde inför rätten stör förhandlingen

eller fotograferar i rättssalen eller bryter mot föreskrift

eller förbud, som har meddelats med stöd av 5 kap. 9§, döms

till böter. Till samma straff döms den som muntligen inför

rätten eller i rättegångsskrift uttalar sig otillbörligt."

(English translation)

"Anyone who, at a court session, disturbs the hearing or takes

photographs in the courtroom, or fails to obey directions or

prohibitions issued by virtue of Chapter 5, Section 9, shall

be punished by a fine. The same punishment shall be imposed on

anyone who, orally or in a paper filed with the court,

expresses himself in an unseemly manner."

Section 9 of Chapter 9 provided that the maximum fine which

could be imposed was one thousand crowns.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains of the imposition of fines by the

courts for contempt of court. He complains that these decisions

constituted a "secret inquisitional penal process", since he did not

receive a public hearing or have any opportunity to refute the

allegations. He invokes Article 6 paras. 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention.

2. The applicant also complains of a violation of Article 10 of

the Convention in relation to the imposition of the fines.

3. The applicant also complains of the court's refusal

on 4 November 1987 to allow him a public hearing in the dispute as to

the appointment of a special administrator for K. He considered the

application for such appointment was a serious attack on the right to

manage one's own business and appoint one's own proxy. He invokes

Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant has complained of being fined for contempt of

court on three occasions without receiving a public hearing. He has

invoked Article 6 paras. 1 (Art. 6-1), 2 (Art. 2) and 3 (Art. 3) of

the Convention in this regard.

The applicant has also complained that the imposition of fines

for contempt of court were in violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the

Convention interfering with his freedom of expression.

The Commission considers that these complaints cannot be

determined without first having obtained written observations from the

parties. The examination of this part of the application must

therefore be adjourned.

2. The applicant has also complained of the refusal of a public

hearing in respect of the proceedings instituted by the Chief Guardian

Board for the appointment of a new administrator. He invokes Article

6 paras. 1 (Art. 6-1) and 3 (Art. 6-3) in this respect.

The Commission notes that the proceedings had been instituted

by the Chief Guardian Board, which sought to appoint an administrator

to act on behalf of K. On 17 June 1987 the District Court rejected

this application without a public hearing and on 4 November 1987, the

Court of Appeal refused the applicant's appeal in which he asked for

the case to be referred to the District Court for re-examination,

including an oral hearing.

The Commission recalls that the District Court resolved two

issues in its decision of 17 June 1987, namely the Chief Guardian

Board's claim that an administrator be appointed to act with the

applicant, and the applicant's claim that the members of the Chief

Guardian Board be dismissed.

The Commission finds that the first mentioned issue was

decided in favour of the applicant and, consequently, there remained

no dispute to be determined by the Court of Appeal in that respect.

As regards the second issue, the Commission finds that this dispute

did not relate to the applicant's "civil rights and obligations".

Nor was there any "criminal charge" against the applicant.

Accordingly, Article 6 paras. 1 (Art. 6-1) and 3 (Art. 6-3) did

not apply to those proceedings before the District Court.

It follows that these complaints are incompatible rationae

materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of

Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).

For these reasons, the Commission by a majority

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE

the applicant's complaints concerning the refusal of a public

hearing in the proceedings relating to the appointment of a new

administrator;

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the remainder of the application.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

Menu

RAVNSBORG v. SWEDEN

RAVNSBORG v. SWEDEN

LEXI