CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 10 novembre 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. 10873/84     TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG   against   SWEDEN   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION     (adopted on 10 November 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. 15-47) .............    4        A.   Particular circumstances of the case          (paras. 15-35) ....................................    4        B.   Relevant domestic law (paras. 36-47) ..............    9   III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES (paras. 48-107) ............   13        A.   The applicant (paras. 48-74) ......................   13            a.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (paras. 48-68) ....   13            b.   Article 6 of the Convention (paras. 69-74) ....   16        B.   The Government (paras. 75-107) ....................   17            a.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (paras. 75-97) ....   17            b.   Article 6 of the Convention (paras. 98-107) ...   21   IV.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras. 108-146) ............   24        A.   Points at issue (para. 108) .......................   24        B.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (paras. 109-125) ......   24        C.   Article 6 of the Convention (paras. 126-145) ......   27            a.   Applicability of Article 6 para. 1 of the              Convention (paras. 128-136) ...................   27            b.   Compliance with Article 6 para. 1 of the              Convention (paras. 137-145) ...................   29        D.   Recapitulation (para. 146) ........................   30     Dissenting opinion by Mr.   Martinez joined by Mr.   Campinos ..   31       APPENDIX I      HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ..................   34   APPENDIX II     DECISION ON ADMISSIBILITY ...................   36     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, Tre Traktörer Aktiebolag, is a limited liability company with its seat at Helsingborg.   The sole shareholder of the company is Mrs.   Olga Flenman.   Before the Commission the company is represented by Mr.   Göran Ravnsborg, lecturer at Lund University.   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 to the revocation of the applicant company's licence to serve beer, wine and alcoholic beverages in a restaurant run by the company.   The applicant company alleges that the revocation of the licence constituted a breach of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and that there has been a breach of Article 6 of the Convention since the company could not have the revocation of the licence examined by a court.   B.       The proceedings   5.       The application was introduced on 23 January 1984 and registered on 23 March 1984.   On 4 December 1984 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 22 March 1985 their observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of the application.           The Government's observations were dated 21 March 1985 and the applicant's observations in reply were dated 2 May 1985.   6.       On 10 October 1985 the Commission declared the application admissible.   7.       The text of the decision on admissibility was transmitted to the parties on 19 November 1985.   The parties were invited to submit any additional observations on the merits of the application they wished to make.   The applicant company's observations were dated 15 January 1986 and 27 February 1986, and the Government's observations were dated 16 January 1986 and 25 February 1986.   These observations were communicated to the other party for information.   8.       On 8 March 1986 the Commission decided to invite the parties to a hearing on the merits of the application.           At the hearing, which was held on 10 December 1986, the applicant company was represented by Mr.   Göran Ravnsborg.   The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr.   Hans Corell, and as advisers Mr.   Leif Lindgren, legal adviser at the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, and Mr.   Håkan Berglin, legal adviser at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.           On 10 December 1986, after the hearing, the Commission deliberated on the merits.           Further written submissions were received from the Government by letters dated 28 January 1987 and 24 April 1987, and from the applicant by a letter dated 6 March 1987.           On 9 May 1987 the Commission considered the state of proceedings of the case.   9.        On 10 November 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. J.A.   FROWEIN                           S. TRECHSEL                           G. JÖRUNDSSON                           A. WEITZEL                           J. C. SOYER                           H.G. SCHERMERS                           H. DANELIUS                           G. BATLINER                           J. CAMPINOS                       Mrs G. H. THUNE                       Mr.   F. MARTINEZ           The text of the Report was adopted by the Commission on 10 November 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.      AB Citykällaren was a limited liability company created in 1960.   As from July 1977 Mrs.   Olga Flenman was the shareholder and only board member of the company.   16.      On 6 March 1980 AB Citykällaren opened the restaurant Le Cardinal in Helsingborg and continued in business up to 29 July 1980.   17.      On 29 July 1980 the applicant company, Tre Traktörer AB, took over the management of the restaurant Le Cardinal.   The applicant company obtained a licence to serve beer, wine and miscellaneous alcoholic beverages in the restaurant.   The applicant company has submitted that without such a licence the restaurant business in question would not have been profitable.   18.      Following certain information from the Police Board (polisstyrelsen) of Helsingborg, the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen) of Malmöhus County raised the question of whether the applicant company should be allowed to continue to have the licence. The Police Board indicated that the sole shareholder of the applicant company, Mrs.   Flenman, was suspected of having hindered a tax investigation.   This suspicion was based on an audit report of 17 September 1981 drawn up by the Tax Department of the County Administrative Board.   19.      The audit report deals with the period 1 July 1979 - 30 June 1980 relating to the company AB Citykällaren which was managed and owned by Mrs.   Flenman.   During the period in question Mrs.   Flenman was at various times managing three different establishments including the restaurant Le Cardinal.   The inspection on which the audit report was based revealed various inaccuracies in the book-keeping, the most significant discrepancy being estimated at 93,000 SEK for the period March - June 1980 concerning the sale of beers, wines and spirits in the same restaurant.   The total turnover for AB Citykällaren for the period in question was 770,000 SEK.   20.      By letter of 4 November 1982 the County Administrative Board informed the applicant company of the above and stated that as a result it considered withdrawing the licence to serve alcoholic beverages under Section 64 para. 2 of the 1977 Act on the Sale of Beverages (lagen om handel med drycker, "the 1977 Act").   The applicant company was invited to submit any observations it wished to make before 15 November 1982.   It explained that the discrepancies as regards the sale of alcoholic beverages were due to thefts.   21.      As a result of the audit report Mrs.   Flenman's taxable income for 1980 was increased by 100.000 SEK.   22.      On 7 January 1983 the County Administrative Board decided to issue an admonition under Section 64 of the 1977 Act.   The decision stated inter alia:   "In view of what has been established at the audit control and as the company has not been able to explain satisfactorily the discrepancies, the County Administrative Board finds that there are reasons to revoke the licence under Section 64 of the 1977 Act.   Accordingly, the licence ought to be revoked now.   The only argument against a revocation is that the negligence took place in the spring of 1980, thus almost three years ago.   As far as has been ascertained, no criticism has been levelled against the management of the restaurant thereafter.   The County Administrative Board has, against this background, not found it necessary to revoke the licence.   Instead the Board issues a serious admonition against the company pursuant to Section 64 of the 1977 Act."   23.      The Social Council (socialnämnden) of Helsingborg appealed against the decision to the National Board of Health and Welfare (socialstyrelsen) and requested that the licence be revoked.   The Council referred to the results of the audit report and to the fact that the special provisions accompanying the licence had not been complied with.   24.         In respect of the latter the Council invoked a report concerning an inspection made at the restaurant on 13 February 1982. From the report it appears inter alia that at the inspection the restaurant was overcrowded and a great number of guests did not have seats.   The guests were between 18 and 25 years old.   Most of them were 18 years old.   In the upper part of the premises there was a discotheque open all evening.   According to the provisions of the licence there was to be live dance music and activities were to concentrate on young people above the age of 22 years.   25.      In the meantime, on 14 January 1983, the County Administrative Board renewed the applicant company's licence, the previous licence being dated 9 November 1981, to be valid until further notice.   The licence read as follows:   (front page)           "Licence to sell beverages under the 1977 Act           Validity                 From 14 January 1983 onwards           Licenced premises        Le Cardinal S Kyrkogatan 9                                 259 23 Helsingborg           Conditions of licence    cf plan dated 11 June 1981 (first and         regarding place of       second floor)         sale on premises                                   serving may take place in a bar                                 according to the plan of 11 June 1981           Conditions of licence         regarding         time                     the whole year           and           permitted types of       Beer, wine and alcoholic beverages         alcohol                                   (cf special provisions on the reverse                                 side concerning young customers)           Licensing hours          The sale of beer may commence at the                                 earliest at 11.00 a.m. and terminate                                 at the latest at 2.00 a.m. *) PTO                                   The sale of alcoholic beverages and                                 wine may commence at the earliest at                                 midday and terminate at the latest at                                 2.00 a.m. *) PTO                                   The premises should be vacated at the                                 latest 30 minutes after the end of the                                 licensing hours.           Provisions               See the reverse side           Previous licence         This licence replaces a licence of                                 9 November 1981"   (reverse side)           "REGULATIONS           1.       This licence cannot be transferred.           2.       There should be a person responsible for serving ....           3.       Alcoholic beverages may not be served unless the person                 responsible or his or her substitute is present... .           4.       Any change of activity should be reported to the                 County Administrative Board ... .           5.       The licence or a copy thereof shall be exposed in the                 restaurant.           6.       The activities shall be performed so as not to be                 directed at a young public, i.e. under 22 years of age.                 The licence holder is therefore obliged to take this                 into account, inter alia when advertising.   The County Administrative Board recalls that the licence has been granted on the assumption that the provision of cooked food will be a major part of the business and that the company, in accordance with its 'programme', does not intend to run a discotheque.   It is further noted that the company has undertaken to discourage too young a clientele by its choice of music and by not playing recorded music.           The County Administrative Board orders that serving shall end at 02.00 hours."   26.      Criminal proceedings were instituted against Mrs.   Flenman for hindering tax investigation (försvårande av skattekontroll) under Section 10 of the Act on Tax Offences (skattebrottslagen).   It was alleged that Mrs.   Flenman had deliberately or as a result of gross negligence as a representative of AB Citykällaren disregarded the book-keeping obligation and thereby seriously impaired the control activities of the authorities.           By a judgment of 27 May 1983 the District Court (tingsrätten) of Helsingborg acquitted Mrs.   Flenman.   The Court did not find it established that the result of the calculations concerning wine, spirits, beer and tobacco could be explained by mistakes in the book-keeping.   Regarding the period from 6 to 17 March 1980 the Court found that the basis for the book-keeping had been insufficient as a result of the absence of a cash box.   In view of the short period and of the fact that the problem with the cash box was not foreseeable the Court considered that the discrepancies were not caused by deliberate action or gross negligence.   The other alleged discrepancies could not in the Court's opinion be regarded to be of such a nature and extent as to hinder seriously the fiscal control as required by Section 10 of the Act on Tax Offences.   27.      On 13 July 1983, upon the appeal by the Social Council against the decision of the County Administrative Board, the National Board of Health and Welfare decided to revoke the applicant company's licence. In the decision the following reasons are stated:   "Under Section 64 para. 1 of the 1977 Act on the Sale of Beverages the County Administrative Board shall revoke a licence to serve, or limit it to certain beverages, inter alia if the provisions of the 1977 Act or the provisions issued under it have not been complied with.   If there is reason to believe that satisfactory conditions could be achieved without such drastic measures, it is possible to issue an admonition to the holder of the licence or to issue special provisions.   Under Section 64 para. 2 of the 1977 Act the same rules should also apply where the holder of the licence cannot any longer be considered to be qualified to run a business with alcoholic beverages or where the conditions for granting a licence are no longer at hand.   The provisions of Section 64 para. 2 of the 1977 Act are connected inter alia with the requirement in Section 40 of the 1977 Act that a new holder of a licence should be suitable.   This requirement of suitability has in practice been considered to include a requirement of personal suitability to sell alcoholic beverages, a task involving great social responsibility.   As regards companies this requirement is applicable to those individuals who have a considerable influence on the business.   The unsuitability of the licence holder which is a reason to revoke the licence to serve may be of many different types. In the Bill 1981/82: 143 page 82 economic mismanagement is given as an example of personal unsuitability even if it is not criminal.   According to Section 70 of the 1977 Act the book-keeping of a business involved in the selling of alcoholic beverages should be such as to enable control of the business.   In the instant case the County Administrative Board refers to an audit report as the basis for its decision.   From this report it appears that the book-keeping of AB Citykällaren was deficient in several respects.   For instance there are differences to be found concerning the recorded sale of beverages.   The explanations given by the company, inter alia regarding thefts of such beverages, show in the opinion of the National Board of Health and Welfare that those who have had a decisive influence on the business have failed to demonstrate sufficient competence regarding both book-keeping and internal control.   Section 64 of the 1977 Act is therefore applicable in this case.   The National Board of Health and Welfare finds that the deficiencies concern compliance with Section 70 of the 1977 Act and as far as suitability is concerned are of such a nature that a measure other than revocation of the licence cannot be considered.   The fact that in the instant case the District Court has rejected the charges of hindering a tax investigation does not affect this assessment.   In view of the above the appeal is granted.   The National Board of Health and Welfare quashes the appealed decision and refers the matter back for new action."           This decision was not subject to appeal.           In a letter of 15 August 1983 the Director General of the National Board of Health and Welfare, in reply to a query concerning the decision in the present case, made, inter alia, the following statement:   "On 1 July 1982 Section 64 and other provisions of the 1977 Act was amended.   The amendment means that the legal text clearly sets out what was already the law before the amendment, namely that measures shall be taken against a licence-holder who demonstrates unsuitability."   28.      On 18 July 1983 the County Administrative Board of Malmöhus County decided to revoke, with immediate effect, the licence to serve alcoholic beverages.   29.      The applicant company appealed to the National Board of Health and Welfare requesting that the decision to revoke the licence should take effect as from 1 March 1984.   It stated that the applicable periods of notice for the personnel would create financial problems if a licence to sell alcoholic beverages until the end of February was not granted.   30.      The National Board of Health and Welfare, in its decision of 15 August 1983, rejected the appeal stating that in view of its previous decision there were no reasons to depart from the main rule in Section 67 of the 1977 Act that decisions under that Act should take effect immediately.   This decision was not subject to appeal.   31.      The applicant company states that as a result of the decision of 18 July 1983, which had immediate effect, the restaurant had to be closed down on 19 July 1983.   32.      By letter of 23 January 1984 the applicant company submitted to the Government a claim for compensation based on the decision to revoke the licence to serve alcoholic beverages.   It requested the Government to find that the decision of the County Administrative Board violated the applicant company's rights under the European Convention of Human Rights.   It was further alleged that Swedish law had been incorrectly applied.   33.      On 16 February 1984 the Government decided to refer the claim for compensation to the Chancellor of Justice (justitiekanslern) and not to take any measures in the matter as regards the other issues.   34.      On 5 March 1984 the Chancellor of Justice decided to reject the claim for compensation; he found no indication that any authority had made any mistake which could make the State liable under the Tort Liability Act (skadeståndslagen).   35.      In June 1984 the applicant company was sold for 1.500.000 SEK.     B.       Relevant domestic law and practice   36.      The aim of Swedish policy as regards alcohol is to limit the total consumption of alcohol and to counteract the abuse of alcohol and the resultant damage to health.   Restrictions on alcohol in Sweden are of long standing.   As from 1895 restaurants and bars serving alcoholic beverages had to be licensed, and in the early 1900s a State monopoly was introduced for the wholesale and retail trading of alcohol.   These restrictions remain in force.   37.      The present Act on the Sale of Beverages was introduced in 1977 and regulates trading in beer, wine and liquor.   It also lays down rules for the serving of these beverages for consumption on the premises of restaurants and bars as well as the issuing of licences for and inspection of these premises.   The Act is supplemented by an Ordinance on the Sale of Beverages (förordning om handel med drycker).   38.      Alcoholic beverages may only be served if a licence has been issued (Section 34 of the Act).   Licences are only issued after an investigation into the need for a restaurant serving alcoholic beverages and the suitability of the applicant and the premises. Section 40 of the Act provides:   (Swedish)   "Vid tillståndsprövningen skall särskilt beaktas behovet av serveringen, sökandens lämplighet och serveringsställets tjänlighet för ändamålet."   (English translation)   "In the examination of the issue of a licence special regard should be had to the need for the restaurant, the applicant's suitability and the suitability of the premises for the purpose."   39.      Licences are issued by the County Administrative Board in the county where the premises are situated.   When the application concerns a new establishment for the serving of alcoholic beverages the County Administrative Board has to consult the local municipal council (kommunfullmäktige) and the local police authority before a decision is taken.   Even in cases concerning the transfer of licences to new owners, extended serving-hours and the revocation of licences the County Administrative Board may consult these local authorities.           The County Administrative Board shall inform the local Social Council of its decisions concerning the serving of alcoholic beverages.   It is therefore possible for the local authorities to be kept informed of all questions concerning alcoholic beverages and to appeal against the decisions of the Board if they are not in agreement.   40.      Appeals against decisions of the County Administrative Board are made to the National Board of Health and Welfare.   The decisions of the National Board in these matters are final (Section 68 of the Act).   41.      The National Board of Health and Welfare supervises the implementation of the Act and the Ordinance at a national level.   The local supervision of the implementation of the Act and the Ordinance is entrusted to the County Administrative Board, the Social Council and the police authorities.   The Social Councils and the police authorities shall inform the County Administrative Board of circumstances which might be of importance in connection with the supervision of the Act.           Only the Board has authority to take actions in accordance with the Act.   According to the travaux préparatoires, the activity of the supervising authorities shall mainly be consultative and preventive, and administrative means of compulsion shall only be used to a limited extent.   42.      Under Section 64 of the Act, licences may be revoked - wholly or partly (limited to certain beverages) - if the sale of alcoholic beverages causes annoyance relating to public order, drunkenness or disturbance of the peace or if the provisions of the Act are not complied with.   The same also applies if the licence holder is no longer believed to be suitable to sell alcoholic beverages.   If there is reason to suppose that acceptable conditions can be achieved without resorting to such an action, the licence holder may be given an admonition.           Section 64 paras. 1 and 2 of the Act read as follows in their wording after 1 July 1982 (SFS 1982:289):   (Swedish)   "Föranleder sådan försäljning av alkoholdrycker som äger rum med tillstånd enligt denna lag olägenheter i fråga om ordning, nykterhet och trevnad eller iakttages ej bestämmelserna i denna lag eller med stöd därav meddelade föreskrifter, skall tillståndsmyndigheten återkalla tillståndet eller begränsa det till att avse viss eller vissa drycker.   Finns anledning antaga att tillfredsställande förhållanden kan åstadkommas utan att så ingripande åtgärd vidtages, får tillståndshavaren i stället meddelas varning eller särskilda föreskrifter.   Första stycket tillämpas även i fall då tillståndshavaren inte längre kan anses lämplig att bedriva försäljning av alkoholdrycker eller annars de förutsättningar som gäller för meddelande av tillstånd ej längre föreligger."   (English translation)   "The licensing authority shall revoke the licence or limit it to certain beverages where such sale of alcoholic beverages as takes place under a licence according to this Act causes annoyance relating to public order, drunkenness or disturbance of the peace or where the provisions of this Act or the rules issued under it are not complied with.   If it may be assumed that satisfactory conditions can be achieved without such a severe measure, the licence holder may instead be given an admonition or special instructions.   The first paragraph also applies when the licence holder can no longer be considered suitable to sell alcoholic beverages or when otherwise the conditions for granting a licence are no longer present."   43.      Before 1 July 1982, the second paragraph of Section 64 read as follows:   (Swedish)           "Första stycket äger motsvarande tillämpning om de         förutsättningar som gäller för meddelande av till-         stånd ej längre föreligger."   (English translation)           "The first paragraph also applies mutatis mutandis if         the conditions for granting a licence are no longer         present."   44.      Under the Act economic mismanagement may be a reason for considering the licence holder unsuitable, even if the sale of alcoholic beverages has been carried out in conformity with the relevant legislation.   Only considerable economic mismanagement is significant.   Small tax debts or unpaid contributions do not disqualify the licence holder.   Anyone who systematically mismanages the payment of taxes and contributions or seriously disregards his obligations regarding book-keeping or the supplying of information shall be considered unsuitable to hold a licence.   It is, however, not a condition that mismanagement is criminal or even intentional.   A considerable degree of negligence in the performance of these obligations can also constitute sufficient reason for intervention.   45.      The book-keeping in an establishment licensed to serve alcoholic beverages shall be carried out in a manner which makes inspection practicable.           Section 70 of the Act reads:   (Swedish)   "Bokföring i rörelse som avser försäljning av alkoholdrycker skall vara så utformad att kontroll av verksamheten är möjlig.   Den som driver rörelsen är skyldig att på anfordran av tillståndsmyndighten förete bokföringen i rörelsen.   Han är dessutom skyldig att lämna statistiska uppgifter i enlighet med de föreskrifter regeringen eller, efter regeringens bestämmande, socialstyrelsen meddelar."   (English translation)   "The book-keeping of an establishment which carries out the sale of alcoholic beverages shall be so organised as to permit control of the activities.   The manager of the establishment is obliged at the request of the licensing authority to produce the books of the establishment.   He is also obliged to produce statistical information pursuant to the regulations issued by the Government or, after the Governmemnt's decision, by the National Board of Health and Welfare."           The travaux préparatoires of Section 70 state that unsatisfactory book-keeping is in itself proof of unsuitability to conduct a business dealing with the sale of alcoholic beverages.   46.      In a report on Swedish legislation on the sale of beverages (SOU 1985:15), based on terms of reference issued by the Government, it is proposed that decisions by the County Administrative Boards should be appealable to the Administrative Courts of Appeal.   From the report it appears that the National Board of Health and Social Welfare is of the opinion that appeals should be examined by another authority. However, the author of the report considers that it is not appropriate for a body - like the Board - which is vested with supervisory functions to fulfil an appellate role, such tasks being more suitably performed by administrative courts.   This proposal is at present being considered by the competent Ministry.   47.      Under Chapter 3 Section 2 of the 1972 Tort Liability Act the State is liable to pay compensation in the event of fault or negligence in the exercise of authority (myndighetsutövning).   III.     SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES     A.       The applicant   a.       Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   48.      There are two main types of restaurants in Sweden: first those which can offer alcoholic beverages to their guests and secondly those which cannot.   From many points of view there are great differences between the two types.   Licenced restaurants involve greater capital investment since the standard of cooking and service is expected to be significantly   higher as the "price" for maintaining the licence. High salaries for skilled personnel and extensive running costs mean that the owner of a licenced restaurant is constantly struggling for survival.   49.      The applicant company considers that a licence holder is completely deprived of his restaurant business if his licence is revoked.   Because of the competition in the licenced restaurant trade the revocation of a licence has disastrous consequences: the working capital invested in the business loses its value to a very great extent and good will disappears.   50.      The licenced restaurant business must be considered as a "possession" in the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   51.      The prelude to this case is the audit report of the County Administrative Board dated 17 September 1981.   This audit report was "torn to pieces" in the criminal proceedings against Mrs.   Flenman as the responsible manager of the company concerned in 1983 at the District Court of Helsingborg where Mrs.   Flenman was acquitted of the charge of hindering a tax investigation.   52.      Nevertheless, this audit report is the basis for the administrative decision to revoke the applicant company's licence to serve beverages, which revocation is rejected both as illegal from a domestic point of view and as constituting serious violations of the Convention.   53.      The audit report refers to the accounts of AB Citykällaren in Helsingborg for the period 1 July 1979 to 30 June 1980.   This company was established in 1960.   Since its financial period 1977/1978 Mrs.   Flenman was the shareholder and the responsible manager of the company.   On 6 March 1980 AB Citykällaren opened the restaurant Le Cardinal.   In July 1980, the same year, a contract was signed with a new joint stock company, Tre Traktörer AB, and, at the same time, the contract involved the takeover of Le Cardinal by Tre Traktörer.   Mrs. Flenman later became the sole shareholder of Tre Traktörer AB which ran Le Cardinal until it was closed down on 18 July 1983 as an immediate, unavoidable consequence of the administrative revocation of the beverage licence, a consequence which had obviously been foreseen and planned by the administration.   54.      In its first decision on the licence issue the County Administrative Board thought that the alleged "book-keeping discrepancies" could be considered as a basis for the revocation of the licence.   However, almost three years had elapsed after the alleged mismanagement and since during those years there had been no criticism against Mrs.   Flenman the Board confined itself to a serious warning.   This decision is on the borderline of domestic unlawfulness.           However, the decision on 18 July 1983 by the County Administrative Board implying the revocation of the licence as well as the National Board for Health and Welfare's decision on 15 August 1983 are clearly unlawful in domestic law and are in violation of the applicant company's rights under the Convention.   55.      As to the domestic unlawfulness it has to be observed that in the aforementioned audit report the alleged "book-keeping discrepancies" occurred exclusively in the period from 1 July 1979 to 30 June 1980. When the National Board of Health and Welfare decided on 13 July 1983 to quash the County Administrative Board's decision the National Board noted an amendment in the Act on the Sale of Beverages which was not enforced until 1 July 1982 and which gave the administrative authorities a wider competence to impose sanctions for alleged "oversights" or "book-keeping discrepancies"   56.      The Director General of the National Board of Health and Welfare refers to this amendment, in a letter to Mr.   S.S. to which the applicant company refers.   In the applicant company's view it appears from this document that the administrative decisions concerning the revocation of the licence are based entirely upon Section 64 para. 2 of the 1977 Act in its wording after 1 July 1982.   57.      Since the alleged "book-keeping discrepancies" relate to the period 1979/1980, the applicant company alleges a retroactive use of the amendment of 1982 as to the alleged mismanagement of 1980.   For that reason the administrative decisions constitute violations of the prohibition of retroactive law-making and retroactive application of the law as provided in the Swedish Instrument of Government (regeringsformen), and in Article 7 of the Convention.   58.      The applicant company finds that the sanction provisions of the Act on the Sale of Beverages are of a penal law nature.   It is impossible to accept as valid an unwritten penal law of such importance to the licence holder.   59.      Moreover, the 1977 Act is an empty law.   It creates too much administrative discretion.   It is therefore not accepted that the 1977 Act is a "law" in the autonomous Convention meaning of the word.   60.      The revocation of the licence must be regarded as a kind of prohibition of trade (cf.   H v.   Belgium, Comm.   Report, 8.10.85).   If so, licensees are the victims of discrimination since, unlike other traders, they do not enjoy the protection of tribunals which satisfy Article 6 and must suffer restrictions on their trade imposed by way of unchecked administrative discretion.   61.      The decisions on revocation of the licence placed an excessive economic burden on the applicant company.   62.      The financial consequences for the applicant company and its owner, Mrs.   Flenman, resulting from the withdrawal of the licence to serve alcoholic beverages in Le Cardinal, amount to a total loss of 3.996.000 SEK, composed of the following three items:   -        Loss of net income during 17 months, monthly         (average) net income 60.000 SEK                       1.020.000   -        Rent expenses during 17 months, monthly 28.000 SEK      476.000   -        Mrs.   Flenman was invited to sell her enterprise         during 1982-1983 at a price of 3.000.000 SEK but         refused to sell since the enterprise was considered         worth 4.000.000 SEK.   After the withdrawal of the         licence and the closing down of Le Cardinal,         Mrs.   Flenman had to sell the enterprise in November         1984 for 1.500.000 SEK                                2.500.000                                                              _________                             &#xa0