Search
document

Document text Analytics

SKOOGSTRÖM v. SWEDEN

Doc ref: 14073/88 • ECHR ID: 001-1308

Document date: October 14, 1988

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

SKOOGSTRÖM v. SWEDEN

Doc ref: 14073/88 • ECHR ID: 001-1308

Document date: October 14, 1988

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 14073/88

by Owe SKOOGSTRÖM

against Sweden

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

14 October 1988, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

S. TRECHSEL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

J. CAMPINOS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

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 May 1987

by Owe SKOOGSTRÖM against Sweden and registered on 28 July 1988 under

file No. 14073/88;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.

The applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1939 and resident

at Östavall.

On 16 April 1987 at 06.30 the applicant was arrested pursuant

to an order of the public prosecutor at Sundsvall. Subsequently, the

public prosecutor submitted an application to the District Court

(tingsrätt) of Sundsvall for the detention of the applicant.

The District Court held a hearing on 22 April 1987 and ordered

that the applicant be detained (häktad) on the grounds that he was

reasonably suspected of, inter alia, theft in Hongkong and fraud in

Italy, and that it could be expected that he would evade legal

proceedings and that, moreover, there was a risk, if the applicant was

released, that he would continue criminal activities.

The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal (hovrätten) of

Nedre Norrland. The Court rejected the appeal on 24 April 1987. The

applicant submitted a further appeal to the Supreme Court (högsta

domstolen) which on 4 May 1987 refused to grant leave to appeal.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains that he has not been brought promptly

before a judge as required by Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention.

2. The applicant also complains that he has been refused a fair

and public hearing within a reasonable time and not allowed to call

witnesses or prepare his defence. He invokes Article 6 of the

Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 12 May 1987 and registered

on 28 July 1988.

On 9 September 1988, the Commission decided pursuant to Rule 42

para. 2 (b) (Rule 42-2-b) of the Rules of Procedure to give notice of the

application to the Government and invite them to submit written

observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint under

Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention.

The Government replied by letter dated 28 September 1988 that

they waive objections against the admissibility of the complaint under

Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that he was not brought promptly

before a judge as required by Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the

Convention.

The Government waive objections against the admissibility of

the application.

Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention reads:

"Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the

provisions of paragraph 1(c) (Art. 5-1-c) of this Article shall

be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised

by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial

within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release

may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial."

The issue which arises in the case is whether the time which

elapsed from the applicant's apprehension on 16 April 1987 at 6.30

hours until his appearance before the Court on 22 April 1987, i.e. six

days, satisfies the condition of "promptly".

The Commission has made a preliminary examination of this

question. It finds that the question raises 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, but must be declared

admissible, no other ground for declaring it inadmissible having been

established.

2. The applicant also complains that he has been refused a fair

and public hearing within a reasonable time and not allowed to call

witnesses or prepare his defence. He invokes Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention.

The Commission finds that the facts and submissions of the

applicant do not disclose any appearance of any violation of

Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.

It follows that, in this respect, the application is

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

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission

1. DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits, the

complaint that the applicant was not brought "promptly" before a judge

as required by Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention.

2. DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H. C. KRUGER) (C. A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant