CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 8 août 1988

.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 OF                         Application No. 12195/86                       by Eric CLOSTERLING                       against Sweden             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 8 September 1988, the following members being present:                 MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J. C. SOYER                   G. BATLINER                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              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 24 March 1986 by Eric CLOSTERLING against Sweden and registered on 29 May 1986 under file No. 12195/86;           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 1924 and resident at Norrköping.           The applicant owns a property, Stg 2257 CD, on which he lives.           On 28 October 1981 the Health Care Committee (hälsovårdsnämnden) of the Municipality of Norrköping rejected an application from the applicant for permission to install a water closet on his property.           The applicant appealed to the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen) of the County of Östergötland, which rejected the appeal on 8 April 1982.   In its decision the Board found that further private water closets would create a sanitary risk in the area in question.           The applicant appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) of Jönköping which, on 25 May 1984, rejected the appeal.   In its judgment the Court noted that since 1 July 1983 Section 7 para. 2 of the Health Care Act (hälsoskyddslagen) required the permission of the Environmental and Health Care Committee (miljö-och hälsoskyddsnämnden) as a condition for the installation of a sewage system to which a water closet is connected.   However, in view of the plans of the municipality for the area in question as well as other circumstances, the Court considered that the applicant's request for such permission should not be granted.           The applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten), which, on 6 December 1985, refused to grant leave to appeal.           In a letter of 20 August 1985 to the applicant a member of the Health Care Committee, in his capacity as the local chairman of the Conservative Party, stated that "it is a breach of the law to bury the sewage on one's own property".   According to the applicant, other members of the Committee had accused him of destroying the ground water.           On 3 March 1986 the Environmental and Health Committee of Norrköping rejected a fresh application from the applicant for a permit to install a water closet with a closed system.     COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains that he is not allowed to install a water closet with a closed sewage system on his property, and he submits that members of the Health Care Committee have accused him of breaches of the law.   He alleges that Article 6 paras. 1 and 2 of the Convention have been violated.   THE LAW   1.       The applicant complains that he has not been granted a permit to install a water closet on his property.   He invokes Article 6 paras. 1 and 2 (Art. 6-1, 6-2) of the Convention.   Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) first sentence reads:   "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."           In an earlier decision the Commission has found that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention is not applicable to a determination as to whether an individual should be granted a permit to install a water closet on his property, since such a decision does not relate to that individual's "civil rights" (see No. 11225/85, Dec. 7.10.85, unpublished). The Commission finds no reason to depart from this view in the present case.           It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 6-2).   2.       Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) of the Convention guarantees to an individual who is charged with a criminal offence the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.   However, the Commission finds no appearance of a violation of this provision on the facts presented by the applicant.           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.   3.       The Commission further finds that there is no other provision in the Convention or its Protocols on which the applicant could claim a right to be allowed to install a water closet on his property.           For these reasons, the Commission             DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE       Deputy Secretary to the Commission       President of the Commission                    (J. RAYMOND)                        (C. A. NØRGAARD)