CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 8 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 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block }  EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS   Application No. 11179/84   Rolf LANGBORGER   against   SWEDEN     REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 8 October 1987)     TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                 page   I.    INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-14) ............................     1        A.   The application          (paras. 2-4)   .....................................     1        B.   The proceedings          (paras. 5-10) .....................................     1        C.   The present Report          (paras. 11-14) ....................................     2     II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS (paras. 15-55) .............     4        A.   The particular circumstances of the case          (paras. 15-55) ....................................     4        B.   Relevant domestic law and practice          (paras. 32-55) ....................................    10            a.   Historical background (para. 32) ..............    10            b.   Negotiation of rents (paras. 33-36) ...........    11            c.   Rent Boards (paras. 37-44) ....................    12            d.   House and Tenancy Court (paras. 45-52) ........    14            e.   Publicity of court decisions (paras. 53-54) ...    18            f.   Other rules (para. 55) ........................    18     III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES (paras. 56-108) ............    21        A.   The applicant          (paras. 57-80) ....................................    21            a.   Article 6 of the Convention (paras. 57-76) ....    21                aa.   "independent and impartial tribunal"                   (paras. 57-64) ...........................    21                bb.   "public hearing" (paras. 65-68) ..........    24                cc.   Were the decisions pronounced publicly?                   (para. 69-76) ............................    25            b.   Article 8 of the Convention (para. 77) ........    27            c.   Article 11 of the Convention (para. 78) .......    27            d.   Article 13 of the Convention (para. 79) .......    27            e.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (para. 80) ........    28        B.   The Government          (paras. 81-108) ...................................    28            a.   Article 6 of the Convention (paras. 81-104) ...    28                aa.   "independent and impartial tribunal"                   (paras. 81-90) ...........................    28                bb.   "public hearing" (paras. 91-103) .........    31                cc.   public pronouncement of judgment                   (para. 104) ..............................    34            b.   Article 8 of the Convention (para. 105) .......    34            c.   Article 11 of the Convention (para. 106) ......    34            d.   Article 13 of the Convention (para. 107) ......    34            e.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (para. 108) .......    34     IV.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras. 109-164) ............    35        A.   Points at issue          (para. 109) .......................................    35        B.   Article 6 of the Convention (paras. 110-147) ......    35            a.      The applicability of Article 6 para. 1 of                 the Convention (para. 111) .................    36            b.      Is it necessary that the procedure before                 both the Rent Board and the House and                 Tenancy Court conforms with the conditions                 of Article 6 para. 1? (paras. 112-114) .....    36            c.      Was the House and Tenancy Court an                 "independent and impartial tribunal?"                 (paras. 115-144) ...........................    36            d.      The requirements of a "public hearing" and                 public pronouncement of judgment                 (paras. 145-147) ...........................    41          C.   Article 8 of the Convention (paras. 148-151) ......    42        D.   Article 11 of the Convention (paras. 152-156) .....    42        E.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (paras. 157-160) ......    43        F.   Article 13 of the Convention (paras. 161-163) .....    44        G.   Recapitulation          (para. 164) .......................................    44       APPENDIX I      HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ..................    46     APPENDIX II     DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY ............    48   I.       INTRODUCTION   1.       The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.       The application   2.       The applicant, Mr.   Rolf Langborger, is a Swedish citizen born in 1922 and resident at Solna.   He is a consulting engineer by profession.   Before the Commission he is represented by Mr.   Bertil Grennberg, a patent agent resident at Uppsala.   3.       The Government are represented by their Agent, Mr.   Hans Corell, Ambassador, Under-Secretary at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Stockholm.   4.       The case relates in particular to the question whether the House and Tenancy Court (bostadsdomstolen), which determined the action brought by the applicant, could be regarded as an independent and impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention, having regard to the fact that so-called lay assessors (intresseledamöter), allegedly adversaries to the applicant, were sitting on that Court.   B.       The proceedings   5.       The application was introduced on 7 September 1984 and registered on 28 September 1984.   On 6 May 1985 the Commission decided, in accordance with Rule 42, para. 2, sub-para. b of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite them to present before 19 July 1985 their observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of the application.   At the request of the Government the time-limit was prolonged until 1 September 1985.           The Government's observations were dated 27 August 1985 and the applicant's observations in reply were dated 15 October 1985.           On 12 December 1985 the Commission, after an examination of the admissibility of the application, decided to invite the parties to a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the application.           At the hearing, which was held on 9 July 1986, the applicant was represented by Mr.   Bertil Grennberg.   The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr.   Hans Corell, and as advisers Mrs.   Lena Moore, legal adviser at the Ministry of Justice, and Mr.   Håkan Julius, legal adviser at the Ministry of Housing and Planning.   6.       On 9 July 1986, the Commission declared the application admissible (1).     __________________ (1)      See decision on admissibility, Appendix II.   7.       The parties were then invited to submit additional observations on the merits of the application.   The Government's observations were dated 1 October 1986 and the applicant's observations were dated 10 October 1986.   These observations were transmitted to the other party for information.   8.       On 10 December 1986 and 9 May 1987 the Commission considered the state of proceedings of the case.   9.        On 8 October 1987 the Commission deliberated on the merits of the case and took the final votes in the case.   10.       After declaring the case admissible the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 (b) of the Convention, placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case.   In the light of the parties' reactions the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which a friendly settlement can be effected.   C.       The present Report   11.      The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes in plenary session, the following members being present:                         MM. C. A. NØRGAARD                           S. TRECHSEL                           B. KIERNAN                           A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                           A. WEITZEL                           J. C. SOYER                           H. DANELIUS                           G. BATLINER                           H. VANDENBERGHE                       Mrs G. H. THUNE                       Sir Basil HALL             The text of the Report was adopted by the Commission on 8 October 1987 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   12.      The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, is           (1)   to establish the facts, and           (2)   to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose              a breach by the Government of their obligations              under the Convention.   13.      A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application forms Appendix II.   14.      The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.       Particular circumstances of the case   15.      The applicant rents a six-room flat of 119m².   The tenancy agreement, entered into on 1 October 1982 between the applicant and the landlord (Mr.   Johansson), contains a negotiation clause (förhand- lingsklausul), which reads as follows:   "During the running of the contract the parties undertake to accept, without previous termination of the contract, the rent and other conditions agreed upon on the basis of the applicable negotiation agreement (förhandlingsordning) between, on the one hand, a property owners' union affiliated to the Swedish Federation of Property Owners and a landlord, who with his property is affiliated to such a union, and, on the other hand, a tenants' union affiliated to the National Tenants Union."           Under this clause the amount of the rent shall be determined by negotiation between the Tenants Union of the Stockholm area (hyresgästföreningen i Stor-Stockholm) and the Stockholm Property Owners Union (Stockholms Fastighetsägareförening).   These two unions have an agreement which regulates the negotiations.   The tenants' union receives a commission which is paid by the landlord in proportion to the amount of rent agreed by the two unions.   At present this amount is 0.3% of the rent.   16.      Being dissatisfied with the amount of the rent and the fact that he was represented by the tenants' union in question, the applicant gave notice by letter of 15 June 1983 to terminate his tenancy contract for the purpose of changing the conditions of the contract in accordance with Chapter 12, Section 54 of the Land Act (jordabalken). The applicant suggested a new contract providing for a fixed rent, thereby excluding the negotiation clause.   17.      The applicant's proposal was rejected by the landlord and, on 23 June 1983, he therefore referred the dispute to the Rent Board (hyresnämnden) in the Stockholm county.   18.      In the applicant's case the Rent Board was composed of one lawyer and two lay assessors.   19.      The President of the Rent Board was Mr.   Göran Hogebrandt, who was appointed as Rent Judge by the Government on 2 April 1981.   At the time of his appointment Mr.   Hogebrandt held the position of Associate Judge of Appeal, which is a non-permanent judicial appointment.   His career has been a normal one within the judiciary, and he has had a certain number of public assignments.   The applicant's case had been allocated to his section in the court.   20.      The lay assessor familiar with the administration of apartment buildings was Mr.   Jan Åke Hedin.   The lay assessor familiar with tenants' problems was Mr.   Gösta Gröndahl.           Mr.   Hedin was born in 1918.   He is an economist and he has been a lay assessor of the Rent Board for approximately thirty years. He has served on the Rent Board since its establishment in 1969. Mr.   Hedin is the Chairman of one of the district associations affiliated to the Stockholm Property Owners Union.   He is a licensed property administrator and is the owner of two properties with tenants' houses.   He is the managing director of his own electricity business and employs some fifty people.           Mr.   Gröndahl was born in 1919.   He is a retired customs officer and has been a lay assessor since the Rent Boards were transferred into State organs in 1969.   He has a long experience of rent matters.   For nine years he was Chairman of one of the district associations affiliated to the Stockholm Tenants Union.   Today he is only a member of this union.           At the time of the present case, both lay assessors had been appointed by the National Board of the Judiciary (domstolsverket) in a decision dated 8 December 1980 for the three-year period 1 January 1981 - 31 December 1983.   The appointments, subsequently renewed, were made after customary processing by the National Board.   Both members served on the Rent Board, at the time of the present case in accordance with a pre-established schedule.   21.      The applicant first challenged the two lay assessors of the Rent Board.   He maintained that the lay assessors, who had originally been nominated by the organisations of landlords and tenants, were representatives of the landlords' union and the tenants' union.   He considered that these members were not in a position to judge the dispute objectively and impartially since the subject-matter affected the raison d'être of the two unions which drew their resources from the sums paid out of the rent negotiations.   The applicant also alleged a risk of discrimination for political reasons on the part of the tenants' union, which had socialist inclinations, because the applicant was a county councillor (landstingsman) elected as representative of the moderate right-wing party (moderata samlingspartiet).   The applicant claimed that the negotiation clause in his contract should be deleted and he also objected to the amount of the rent.   22.      The Rent Board held a hearing on 17 November 1983.   Both the applicant and his representative, as well as the representative of the landlord, were present at the hearing.   The President of the Rent Board, Mr.   Göran Hogebrandt, first rejected the challenge of the two lay assessors, giving the following reasons:   "Section 5 of the Act on Lease Boards and Rent Boards (lagen om arrendenämnder och hyresnämnder) provides that in a case as the present one the Board shall be composed of one member who is well acquainted with the administration of rented residential property and one member who is well acquainted with or familiar with the situation of tenants. These members have been appointed in the present case by the National Board of the Judiciary upon proposals from the Swedish Federation of Property Owners and the National Tenants Union respectively.   This fact alone could not constitute a ground for challenge.   In view hereof, and as there is no other reason which could justify a challenge of Mr.   Hedin   and Mr.   Gröndahl, the applicant's challenge shall be rejected."   23.      Thereafter the Rent Board heard the parties on the merits of the case.   At the end of the hearing the Rent Board announced that the decision in the case would be made available at the Rent Board's registry on 1 December 1983.   24.      The Rent Board's decision in the case was delivered on 1 December 1983 and the Board's conclusion was that the applicant's claims were rejected.   The applicant received a copy of the decision by ordinary post.           As regards the reasons for rejecting the the applicant's claim that the negotiation clause be excluded, the Rent Board stated as follows:   "In the assessment of a dispute as to the retention of a negotiation clause particular regard must be had to the statements in the travaux préparatoires to the Rent Negotiation Act.   The responsible Minister inter alia stated the following:   "A tenant may of course also refer a dispute concerning a negotiation clause to the Rent Board even if this is not the result of a common action by those living in the house.   It is possible that the tenant does not oppose collective negotiations concerning the house in which he lives.   However, on account of circumstances relating to his personal living conditions he may wish himself to stay outside such negotiations and retain his right to conclude individual agreements on changes of the rent with the landlord.   In such a case the Rent Board shall assess the strength of the reasons invoked by the tenant in the particular case in support of his claim.   At the same time the Rent Board must take into account that the landlord has an interest in the collective negotiations covering as many flats as possible as a result of the application of the utilisation value system (bruksvärdesystem).   Even if the landlord as such has a justifiable interest in having a negotiation clause included in the tenancy agreement, it can be reasonable in a number of cases to comply with the tenant's request for an individual right to negotiation. As I just indicated the Rent Board shall weigh on the one hand the interest in not making a rational negotiation of the rent issue too difficult and, on the other hand, the principle that the individual tenant should have the greatest possible freedom in concluding agreements. Circumstances which militate in favour of the tenancy agreement not including a negotiation clause can be connected with the character of the flat and the house.   Thus it can be a special type of flat to which the collective negotiation form is not particularly well adapted.   It can also be a question of an older house with considerable differences of quality between flats.   If the tenant then considers that he can achieve better rent conditions by negotiating directly with the landlord, there may be reasons to let him do so. If the negotiation agreement comprises only a small number of flats can in my opinion also be a reason for accepting such an action from a tenant.   A case which can also lead to a flat being exempted from the collective negotiation is that the tenant and the landlord are relatives or that there are other personal relations between them.   In such a case the parties should normally be in agreement, and the Rent Board need not enter into an examination of the merits.   The tenant may also in a particular case invoke that the negotiations have not been conducted in a way which is compatible with the provisions of the Rent Negotiation Act.   Circumstances of this nature must obviously be given great importance when the Rent Board examines the case.   In my opinion a negotiation clause should be excluded if for instance it appears from the investigation that there is an obviously excessive remuneration to the tenants' organisation.   In summary I thus propose that in the Rent Negotiation Act there be included a provision concerning the basis for the assessment, when the Rent Board has to examine a dispute regarding the inclusion or retention of a negotiation clause in the tenancy agreement.   The provision ought to have as its aim that the tenancy agreement shall contain a negotiation clause, if it is not reasonable that the negotiation clause should not apply in view of the tenant's personal living conditions, the attitude of the other tenants who are affected by the negotiation agreement and other circumstances (Government Bill 1977/78: 175 p. 130 etc)."           In the present case the applicant - as his submission may be         understood - has alleged that he lacks confidence in the         tenants' union as such and in its manner to conclude         agreements on rent, in particular for such tenants who are         not members of the tenants' union.           The Rent Board finds it established from the investigation         in the case that on the occasion of the latest negotiation         agreement (1 December 1982) (the applicant's flat) was         given the same rent as other flats of the same size in         the house.   The Rent Board furthermore finds that on         1 October 1982 (the applicant) entered into a new rent         agreement where the rent is the same as in the above         mentioned negotiation agreement (221 SEK per sq. metre flat         surface and year).   Even if at the beginning of the meeting         in this case (the applicant) did not want to accept that he         had signed the tenancy agreement, nothing else has been         proven than that it is a voluntary agreement which has been         concluded.   Neither has the investigation of the case given         cause to believe that the rent for (the applicant's) flat         deviates from the rent in similar flats in the stock of         flats held by the public utility companies.           In view of what has been said above and the other         circumstances the Rent Board finds that it has not been         shown that the negotiation activity in (the applicant's)         case has been conducted by the tenants' union in such a way         as to be in conflict with the provisions of the Rent         Negotiation Act.   When making an assessment between, on the         one hand, a rational negotiation work when fixing rents and,         on the other hand, the principle that the individual tenant         should enjoy the greatest possible freedom in concluding         agreements, the Rent Board finds that the negotiation clause         should also in the future be included in (the applicant's)         rent agreement.   His claim should therefore be rejected."   25.      The applicant appealed to the House and Tenancy Court (bostadsdomstolen) basing himself inter alia on Articles 6, 11 and 13 of the Convention.   He argued that the Court, as the highest competent body, was the national authority within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention.   He called for a thorough examination of the challenge raised in the first instance.   He also challenged any lay assessors of the House and Tenancy Court who might represent the landlords' and tenants' unions.   As to the merits, the applicant reiterated his request not to be represented by the tenants' union and asked to be permitted to fix his rent by means of an individual contract with the landlord.   26.      In the applicant's case the Court was composed of four members.           The President was the President of the House and Tenancy Court, Judge Hans Svahn, who also held the permanent position of Chamber President in the Court of Appeal (hovrättslagman).   The Government appointed Mr.   Svahn on 1 September 1983, as President of the House and Tenancy Court from 1 October 1983 to 30 September 1986. After a customary judicial career, and in addition service in both Parliament and the Ministry of Justice, Mr.   Svahn served as Permanent Under-Secretary and Under-Secretary for Legal Affairs at the Ministry of Industry.   He was then appointed by the Government as Chamber President of the Svea Court of Appeal, which position he held until his appointment as President of the House and Tenancy Court.   The appointment as Chamber President of the Court of Appeal is a permanent judicial appointment.   Mr.   Svahn formally still holds his position as Chamber President even during his mandate at the House and Tenancy Court.           The Court Rapporteur in the case was Mr.   Hans Anderberg, Housing Judge.   He served during the years 1969-1979 as Rent Judge at the Rent Board in Stockholm and was thereafter appointed Housing Judge.   His term was subsequently extended from 30 September 1983 to 30 September 1986, the Government decision being dated 29 September 1983.   Formally he still holds his post as Rent Judge, which position is permanent.   27.      The lay member familiar with matters concerning private property owners was Mr.   Bertil Tullberg and the lay member familiar with tenants' matters was Mrs.   Märta Kåremo.           Mr.   Tullberg was born in 1913.   He had been a permanent member of the Court for nine years when he resigned in 1984.   Before that he had for many years been a member of the National Rent Council (statens hyresråd).   When he retired in 1979 he had been the managing director of the Stockholm Property Owners Union for ten years.   He is a Bachelor of Law, and before the period as managing director he was the legal adviser of the union since 1943.   He has never been the owner of a property with tenants.           Mrs.   Kåremo was born in 1923.   She was a deputy lay assessor of the Court for ten years when she resigned on 1 July 1985.   Before that she had the corresponding post in the National Rent Council since 1967.   Before she retired she was an employee of the National Tenants Union where she was responsible for the training of the association's staff in legal matters within its competence.   At the time when the applicant's case was decided Mrs.   Kåremo was still employed by the Tenants Union and received a salary from the union. She was in receipt of a partial disability pension as well as a small pension from an insurance company.           It follows that both lay assessors have served on the House and Tenancy Court since its establishment in 1975.   Renewal of their mandates for the period at issue was by a Government decision of 11 June 1981 for the period 1 July 1981 to 30 June 1984.   28.      By letter of 28 December 1983 from the House and Tenancy Court the applicant was informed as follows:           "In the capacity of a party in the above-mentioned case you         are informed that the House and Tenancy Court may determine         the case on the basis of its present state without an oral         hearing."   29.      On 23 February 1984 one of the judges of the House and Tenancy Court rejected the challenge directed against the two lay assessors of the Court.   This decision was to be made public on 2 April 1984.   It states inter alia as follows:   "The Act on the House and Tenancy Court (lagen om bostadsdomstolen) provides that the Court shall, in a case of this nature, be composed of, on the one hand, a lay assessor who is familiar with tenants' problems and, on the other hand, a lay assessor who is familiar with the administration of residential property.   All such lay assessors of the Court have been appointed by the Government upon proposals from the National Tenants Union and the Swedish Federation of Property Owners.   The fact that Mr. Tullberg and Mrs.   Kåremo are attached to these organisations could not, therefore, as such be the basis for a challenge of them.   Consequently, and since the House and Tenancy Court does not find any other reason to disqualify Mr. Tullberg and Mrs.   Kåremo, the Court rejects (the applicant's) claim."           A copy of this decision was only sent to the applicant on 17 April 1984.   This delay was due to a mistake.   30.      On 2 April 1984 the House and Tenancy Court delivered judgment on the merits of the case, thereby confirming the decision of the Rent Board.   The Court sat in private in the absence of the parties and took its decision without a hearing.   31.      The applicant received a photocopy of the judgment by ordinary post.    As this decision referred to another decision of the Court of the same day rejecting his challenge, the applicant asked the Court for information on this decision.   He then received, on 17 April 1984, a photocopy of the decision given on 23 February 1984.             B.   Relevant domestic law and practice           a.   Historical background   32.      Owing to the increase in the urban population a considerable number of buildings were erected in the years following the 1890s. The older buildings generally belonged to individuals but the owners of modern buildings included bodies whose capital was provided from public sources.   Most of the accommodation was rented.   At the end of the First World War rents increased steeply.   To compensate for the economic inequality existing on the free market between tenants and landlords the first Rent Boards were established in 1917.   These Boards were composed of representatives of the tenants and the landlords and presided over by a lawyer.   The Boards could act as mediators and decide disputes on the amount of rent.   This system was abolished in 1923 with the return of free market principles.           Strict economic measures were taken during the Second World War including a price freeze and the passing of the 1942 Rent Control Act (lagen om hyresreglering).   In principle, rents were fixed at the level existing when the Act entered into force.   The Rent Boards were re-established.           Some accommodation ceased to correspond to its true market value.   Although collateral economic arrangements were forbidden by law they nevertheless occurred.   It was therefore decided in the seventies to repeal the 1942 Act without however returning to the free market in order not to stimulate a steep increase in rents.           b.    Negotiation of rents   33.      Section 1 of the 1978 Rent Negotiation Act (hyresförhandlingslagen, "the 1978 Act") provides that conditions for tenancies shall be negotiated between a landlord or a landlord and a landlords' organisation on the one hand, and a tenants' organisation on the other.   The negotiation procedure is agreed on by the parties or fixed by a Rent Board.   If a tenancy agreement contains a negotiation clause the tenant must accept the provisions agreed between the parties.   35.      A dispute as to the maintenance or adoption of a negotiation clause may be submitted to a Rent Board.   Section 2 of the 1978 Act provides that a negotiation clause shall be adopted or retained if this is not unreasonable, having regard to the tenant's living conditions or the opinion of other tenants affected by the clause. The right to have examined the negotiation clause by a Rent Board is, according to the travaux préparatoires, laid down for the purpose of safeguarding the legal security of the individuals.   Reference is made in particular to tenants who are not members of the negotiating unions (Government Bill No. 1977/78: 175 p. 132).   The Rent Board shall examine the validity of the tenant's reasons for remaining outside the collective negotiation system and the interests of the landlord.   The Rent Board shall weigh the interest in not preventing rational negotiations concerning the fixing of rents against the fundamental demand of the greatest possible contractual freedom for the individual.   The following circumstances may justify an exemption from the obligation to accept a negotiation clause:           - the special features of the accommodation;         - the negotiation system may apply to only part of the           accommodation concerned;         - the personal relationship between the landlord and the           tenant;         - negotiations failing to comply with the 1978 Act;         - excessive remuneration of the tenants' organisation.   35.      Under Section 20 of the 1978 Act, it may be decided in the negotiations that the rent shall include a sum to remunerate the tenants' organisation for the part it plays in the negotiations.   The sum intended for this purpose must be specifically indicated in the negotiation agreement.   Section 20, third sentence provides that the amount may not exceed what can be considered to be reasonable having regard to the rent, the cost of the negotiation activity and other circumstances.   36.      The system for negotiating rent should in principle apply to one or more buildings.   At present it applies to all accommodation owned by public organisations and 80% of buildings comprising more than two flats (flerfamiljshus) in private ownership.           c.    Rent Boards   37.      The Rent Boards are not regarded under Swedish law as courts but as administrative authorities.   38.      Under Section 4 of the Act on Lease Boards and Rent Boards the Rent Boards hear and determine disputes relating to rent in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12 of the Land Act.   They also determine disputes relating to the application of the Rent Negotiation Act and other Acts.   The Boards also act as mediators.   There are twelve Rent Boards in Sweden.   In 1984, they heard 31,194 cases and 8,731 cases were pending at the end of the year.   39.      Section 5, first and second sentences of the Act on Lease Tribunals and Rent Boards provides:           (Swedish)   "Hyresnämnd består av lagfaren ordförande och två andra ledamöter, om ej annat följer av tredje stycket.   Av de senare ledamöterna skall den ene vara väl förtrogen med förvaltning av hyresfastighet eller, när ärendet rör bostadsrättsfastighet, med förvaltning av sådan fastighet och den andre vara väl förtrogen med bostadshyresgästers förhållanden eller, när ärendet rör annan lägenhet än bostadslägenhet, med näringsidkande hyresgästers förhållanden."   (English translation)   "A Rent Board is composed of a legally trained lawyer as president and two other members, unless the third paragraph provides otherwise.   Of the latter members, one shall be well acquainted with the administration of residential properties or, when the case concerns flat-owners' houses, with the administration of such property and the other shall be well acquainted with the situation of tenants or, when the case concerns other flats than flats for dwelling purposes, with the situation of tenants engaged in business activities."   40.      According to Section 6 of the Act on Lease Tribunals and Rent Boards, the Government or an authority appointed by the Government shall appoint the chairman and a suitable number of other members for each Rent Board.   41.      The President of a Rent Board is designated Rent Judge and must have legal education.   When a position as president has been notified as vacant, it is the Government which determine who shall be appointed, on the basis of applications and the recommendation of a special Appointments Recommendation Board (tjänsteförslagsnämnd) for the courts.   However, the heads of the three largest Rent Boards are appointed by the Government without prior application procedure.   The position of the Rent Judges is permanent, and they cannot in principle be removed from their position.   Rent Judges work full time on the Boards.   If more than one president serves on the same Board, each president has his own section.   Incoming cases are distributed geographically among the different sections.   42.      The lay assessors are appointed by the National Board of the Judiciary for a period of three years.   Before a lay assessor is appointed the organisations concerned with the housing market (principally, the Swedish Federation of Property Owners and the National Tenants Union are given the opportunity of proposing candidates.   These proposals are generally followed and no selection between several candidates is made.   The members are considered to sit on the boards in their personal capacity and not as representatives of the unions.           Section 6, para. 2 of the Act on Lease Boards and Rent Boards provides:           (Swedish)   "Innan annan ledamot än ordförande förordnas, skall sådan riksorganisation av fastighetsägare, hyresgäster, bostadsrättshavare eller näringsidkare som med hänsyn till medlemsantal, verksamhet och övriga omständigheter kan anses väl företräda den intressegrupp som det är fråga om beredas tillfälle att avge förslag."   (English translation)   "Prior to the appointment of a member other than the President, a national organisation of property owners, tenants, flat-owners or businessmen which, in view of its membership, activities and other circumstances, can be considered well to represent the interest group at issue, shall be given the opportunity to submit a proposal."   43.      The lay assessors on the Rent Boards serve in accordance with a schedule prepared in advance and are not designated for a certain case.   They do not therefore know in advance which cases they will be dealing with.     44.      The proceedings before the Rent Boards are, in principle, oral.   The investigation may include an inspection of the accommodation and the hearing on oath of witnesses or experts.   The procedure for the hearing of witnesses is prescribed by the Code of Judicial Procedure (rättegångsbalken).   The reasons must be given for the decisions.           Although the Rent Boards are not considered to be courts but have the status of administrative authorities in Sweden, the provisions of the Code of Judicial Procedure governing votes, challenges and the publicity of the proceedings and decisions apply to them.   The Boards apply other provisions of the Code of Judicial Procedure by analogy, in particular those relating to ordinary civil actions (dispositiva tvistemål).   In other cases the general provisions of the Administrative Act (förvaltningslagen) apply.   45.      In principle the decision is to be given on the day of the hearing or at the latest two weeks afterwards.   The parties are informed at the hearing of the date on which the decision will be given.   A copy is sent to the parties within seven days if the decision is given at the hearing.           d.    House and Tenancy Court   46.      Unlike the Rent Boards, the House and Tenancy Court is considered to be a court under Swedish law.   The 1974 Act on the House and Tenancy Court (lagen om bostadsdomstol, "the 1974 Act") provides that the Court shall decide on appeals lodged against decisions of the Boards in the cases prescribed by the Act.   No appeal lies from the decision of the House and Tenancy Court.   Section 5 of the 1974 Act provides:           (Swedish)   "Bostadsdomstolen består av minst tre ledamöter, som är lagkunniga och erfarna i domarvärv (lagfarna ledamöter), en ledamot med teknisk utbildning och erfarenhet av värderings- eller byggnadsteknik (teknisk ledamot) samt högst tolv ledamöter med särskild sakkunskap om förhållandena på bostadsmarknaden (intresseledamöter)."   (English translation)   "The House and Tenancy Court is composed of at least three legally trained members with professional experience as judges (lawyers), one member with technical education and experience of evaluation or building technique (technical assessor) and, at most, twelve members with special knowledge of the conditions on the housing market (lay assessors)."   47.      The members are appointed by the Government.   Under Section 7 of the 1974 Act the lawyers (Housing Judges) and the technical assessor must not be appointed from among persons who might be considered as representing the interests of the landlords or the tenants. &#xa