CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 5 octobre 1987

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY     Application No. 11610/85 by Siv WESTERBERG against Sweden             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 5 October 1987, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      M.A. TRIANTAFYLLIDES                      E. BUSUTTIL                      A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                      A. WEITZEL                      H.G. SCHERMERS                      H. DANELIUS                      G. BATLINER                      J. CAMPINOS                      H. VANDENBERGHE                 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 26 April 1985 by Siv WESTERBERG against Sweden and registered on 24 June 1985 under file No. 11610/85;           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, as they appear from the applicant's submissions, may be summarised as follows.           The applicant is a Swedish citizen born in 1932 and resident in Gothenburg.   She is a practising lawyer.           After several years as a general medical practitioner, the applicant's licence to practise (läkarlegitimation) was withdrawn by a decision of 7 December 1979 by the Disciplinary Board of the Health Organisation (medicinalväsendets ansvarsnämnd).           The applicant appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) of Stockholm which on 4 July 1980 rejected the appeal.           The applicant submitted a further appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten) which rejected the appeal on 16 July 1981.   In its judgment the Supreme Administrative Court stated inter alia:   "From the comprehensive investigation of the case it clearly appears ... that the medical practice run by (the applicant) discloses very substantial deficiencies from a medical point of view and that it is at such a level that it cannot be accepted.   From the facts of the case it appears that (the applicant) does not realise that her activities have been carried out in an unsatisfactory manner.   In view of the circumstances it cannot be assumed that (the applicant) if she continued as a medical practitioner would correct what is deficient.   The Supreme Administrative Court finds that (the applicant) has shown herself to be manifestly unfit to exercise the medical profession.   Her licence to practise medicine should therefore be revoked."           One of the justices of the Supreme Administrative Court submitted a concurring opinion in which he developed his opinion.   He stated the following at the end of a two page opinion:   "The circumstances which have been established through the investigation have also been subject to the attention of the social security office for a long time.   In the necessary co-operation with this office (the applicant) has taken a more and more hostile attitude.   There is no reason to believe, in view of the applicant's attitude to the problems at issue as it appears from her own writings, that she would substiantially rectify herself after a reminder or an admonition."           On 13 October 1983 the applicant submitted a request for a licence to practise medicine.   The request was refused by the Health and Medical Disciplinary Board (hälso-och sjukvårdens ansvarsnämnd) on 12 April 1984, since it was considered that the conditions which had prompted the withdrawal of the licence had not changed.           The applicant appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal of Stockholm, which rejected the appeal on 21 December 1984.           The applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court which, on 25 February 1985, refused to grant leave to appeal.     COMPLAINTS   1.       The applicant complains that by withdrawing her licence to practise medicine and by refusing to grant such licence the authorities have violated her right to freedom of expression and freedom to hold opinions since the withdrawal and the refusal were based on expressions made by the applicant and on the opinions which she holds.   The withdrawal of the licence and the refusal to renew it are a sanction for expressions made by the applicant, inter alia, in the Medical Practitioners' Journal (Läkartidningen) in 1975, where she criticised the social security office.   The applicant also refers to the concurring opinion of one of the justices of the Supreme Administrative Court to substantiate that the measures against her were based on her opinions.   She alleges a breach of Article 10 of the Convention.   2.       The applicant also alleges a violation of Article 6 of the Convention.    She submits that the Courts without proof have accepted unsubstiantiated allegations from her counter party.   Consequently, the Courts have not been impartial.     THE LAW   1.       The applicant complains that the withdrawal of her licence to practise medicine and the subsequent refusal to grant her such a licence were a sanction for her having expressed opinions.   She alleges a breach of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression, a right which includes the freedom to hold opinions.           The applicant also complains that the treatment which her case received by the Courts was not impartial and that there has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.   2.       The Commission recalls that the applicant's licence was withdrawn by a decision of 7 December 1979, a decision which was eventually confirmed by the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court dated 16 July 1981.   Later the applicant sought to obtain a new licence to practise medicine.   Her request was refused, the final decision being the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of 25 February 1985.           Under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention the Commission may only deal with an application which has been introduced within six months from the final domestic decision.   The present application was introduced on 26 April 1985 which is more than six months after 16 July 1981, being the date of the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court whereby the withdrawal of the applicant's licence became final.   The applicant's complaints relating to this judgment and the procedure which preceded that judgment have accordingly been lodged out of time with the Commission, and must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.   3.       As regards the refusal to grant the applicant a licence to practise medicine, it is recalled that this refusal was based on the consideration that the conditions which had prompted the withdrawal of the licence had not changed.   Accordingly, when examining this refusal under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention the Commission must take into account the grounds given for the withdrawal of the applicant's licence.   Having examined the grounds indicated in the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 16 July 1981, as well as the concurring opinion, the Commission finds no reason to conclude that the refusal to grant the licence to practise medicine was based on, or motivated by, the applicant's criticism against the authorities. There is therefore no interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) 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.   4.       With regard to the complaint under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention the Commission, assuming that Article 6 is applicable to the proceedings in question, recalls that, in accordance with Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Convention, its only task is to ensure the observance of the obligations undertaken by the Parties in the Convention.   In particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.   The Commission refers, on this point, to its constant case-law (see e.g.   No. 458/59, Dec. 29.3.60, Yearbook 3 pp. 222, 236; No. 5258/71, Dec. 8.2.73, Collection 43 pp. 71,77; No. 7987/77, Dec. 13.12.79, D.R. 18 pp. 31, 45).   The Commission is thus not competent to examine whether or not the domestic courts have correctly evaluated the evidence before them.           The Commission finds that the applicant's submissions do not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention in the proceedings complained of.           It follows that the remainder of 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           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE           Secretary to the Commission      President of the Commission                     (H.C. KRÜGER)                     (C.A. NØRGAARD)