CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 7 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 } .sB6586327 { width:29.62pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block }        Application No. 12375/86                by Maria GERDÅS, Tarja LINDELL and Kerstin LINDER         against Sweden     The European Commission of Human rights sitting in private on 7 October 1987, the following members being present:       MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President          S. TRECHSEL                      F. ERMACORA                      M.A. TRIANTAFYLLIDES                      E. BUSUTTIL                      A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                      A. WEITZEL                      J.C. SOYER                      H.G. SCHERMERS                      H. DANELIUS                      G. BATLINER                      H. VANDENBERGHE                 Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 MM.   F. MARTINEZ                      C.L. ROZAKIS                 Mrs.   J. LIDDY                   Mr.   J. RAYMOND, Deputy 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 22 September 1984 by Maria GERDÅS, Tarja LINDELL and Kerstin LINDER against Sweden and registered on 3 September 1986 under file No. 12375/86;           Having regard to           - the first report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of           Procedure of the Commission,           - the Commission's decision of 4 December 1986 to communicate           the application to the Government for written observations           on the admissibility and merits,           - the Government's observations of 7 April 1987,           - the applicants' letters of 14 and 15 June 1987,           - the second report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules           of Procedure;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.           The applicants are three qualified nurses:           1.       Mrs.   Maria Gerdås, a Swedish citizen born in 1957         and resident at Burseryd.           2.       Mrs.   Tarja Lindell, a Finnish citizen born in 1955         and resident at Borås.           3.       Mrs.   Kerstin Linder, a Swedish citizen born in 1952         and resident at Kalmar.           The applicants have been qualified nurses since 1976 (the third applicant) and 1978 (the first and second applicants).   The first and third applicants attended an additional training course in obstetrics and gynaecology at the Higher Health School of Gothenburg from 16 October 1982 to 14 October 1983.   The second applicant attended the same course at the Southern Health School of Älvsborg from 16 August 1982 to 30 September 1983.   The training is intended to result in a special certificate in midwifery.   Such a certificate is issued by the National Board of Health and Social Welfare (socialstyrelsen) on the basis of proof of completed education from the competent school.   Such a certificate is allegedly a condition for exercising the profession of a midwife.           The central syllabus for training in this subject does not require that the participants must learn how to insert a coil into the uterus of a woman as a contraceptive measure.   Nor is there any such requirement in the local schools' syllabuses.   Nevertheless, the schools have interpreted the syllabus to mean that in order to pass the examination the nurse must have inserted coils into several patients in clinical care.           Being Christians, the applicants do not wish to participate in measures of an abortive nature.   In their opinion it is not permissible to interrupt a life which has started after fertilization. The coil is directed against a fertilized egg and is designed to prevent the egg from implanting itself in the uterus.   In the applicants' view this method is thus a form of early abortion.           The applicants point out that during 1982 two participants in the midwifery course in Gothenburg, who for ethical reasons refused to insert coils, were granted permission from the National Board for Universities and High Schools (universitets - och högskoleämbetet) to follow an alternative training procedure by inserting a coil into three volunteers on the condition that it would be removed immediately.   In this way, the two participants were able to pass their examination and receive the necessary certificate.           The applicants submitted applications to be permitted to follow such an alternative training procedure, but these were rejected by the respective schools on 28 April 1983, as regards the first and third applicants, and on 14 April 1983, as regards the second applicant.           The applicants appealed to the National Board for Universities and High Schools, which in a decision of 12 October 1983 rejected the appeal.           The applicants lodged a further appeal with the Government, which on 29 March 1984 rejected the appeal.     COMPLAINTS   1.       The applicants submitted that their refusal to insert contraceptive coils as part of their midwifery training is based on their Christian beliefs.   The applicants regarded the Government's refusal to grant them midwives' certificates as an endeavour to induce them to violate their religious convictions and to depart from their religious beliefs in order to be able to perform their profession. They alleged a violation of their freedom of religion protected by Article 9 of the Convention.   2.       The applicants also submitted that they were discriminated against as a result of the fact that two other participants in such a course were permitted to follow an alternative training procedure. Since the applicants were refused this alternative procedure there has been an unjustified discrimination based on their religious beliefs in violation of Article 14 of the Convention.   3.       The applicants finally submitted that the right to earn a living in the profession for which they have been trained is a "civil right" within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention.   By refusing the applicants a certificate which would have entitled them to work as midwives, the authorities compelled them to continue to work as nurses earning a lower salary than midwives.   Since the Government have refused a civil right in their decision, the applicants have been entitled to an impartial and public hearing of the matter.   However, such a procedural right does not exist in Swedish law, and there has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 of the Convention.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 22 September 1984 and registered on 3 September 1986.           On 4 December 1986 the Commission decided to bring the application to the notice of the Government and to invite them to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.           The Government's observations were dated 7 April 1987.   In their observations the Government concluded that the application should be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies or, as regards Article 6 of the Convention, for being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, or as being manifestly ill-founded in its entirety.           By letter of 14 and 15 June 1987 the applicants informed the Commission that they wished to withdraw their application, the background being that they had in May 1987 been given certificates as midwives with the remark that they had not inserted contraceptive coils.   The decision to grant the applicants the certificates was the result inter alia of a report of the Standing Parliamentary Committee on Social Affairs of 5 November 1986 (SoU 1986/87:5) and a decision of the Government of 12 February 1987.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION           The Commission notes that the applicants have withdrawn their application after having been granted certificates as midwives.   The Commission finds in these circumstances that there are no reasons of a general character affecting the observance of the Convention which require further examination of the application.             For these reasons, the Commission           DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.         Deputy Secretary to the Commission       President of the Commission                       (J. RAYMOND)                        (C.A. NØRGAARD)