CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 13 mars 1989

.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. 13648/88 by Jan KUCZYNSKI against Sweden             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 13 March 1989, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      S. TRECHSEL                      F. ERMACORA                      G. SPERDUTI                      E. BUSUTTIL                      A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                      A. WEITZEL                      J.C. SOYER                      H.G. SCHERMERS                      H. DANELIUS                      G. BATLINER                      J. CAMPINOS                      H. VANDENBERGHE                 Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 MM.   F. MARTINEZ                      C.L. ROZAKIS                 Mrs.   J. LIDDY                 Mr.   L. LOUCAIDES                   Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission             Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 8 January 1988 by Jan KUCZYNSKI against Sweden and registered on 7 March 1988 under file No. 13648/88;           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 submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.           The applicant is a Polish citizen, born in 1946 and resident at Alvesta, Sweden.   He is an engineer by profession.   Before the Commission the applicant is represented by Mrs.   Siv Westerberg, a lawyer practising at Gothenburg.           The applicant is living together with a Polish citizen, Eva Nowacka, who is the first applicant in Application No. 12805/86. That case concerns the taking into public care of Ewa Nowacka's daughter, Katarzyna, who is the second applicant in the case.           Ewa Nowacka and her daughter came to Sweden from Poland in May 1985 and settled in Alvesta with the applicant.   Katarzyna was taken into public care by a decision of the Chairman of the Social Council (socialnämnden) of Alvesta of 16 August 1985 as there was a strong suspicion of her having been maltreated.   A report was addressed to the police by the social authorities.   As a result criminal investigations against the applicant were initiated in August 1985 on suspicion of ill-treatment of the child.           The Chairman's care decision was revoked on 8 October 1985 by the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) of the County of Kronoberg after an agreement had been reached between Ewa Nowacka and the social authorities that care be provided for Katarzyna on a voluntary basis.           On 10 October 1985 the District Prosecutor (distriktsåklagaren) discontinued the criminal investigation against the applicant on the ground that it could not be proven that a criminal offence had been committed.           On 31 October 1985 the Chairman of the Social Council again decided to take Katarzyna into care on a provisional basis on the ground that the social authorities suspected that the girl had been maltreated.   The social authorities lodged a request that Katarzyna be taken into care pursuant to the 1980 Act with Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons (lagen med särskilda bestämmelser om vård av unga).   The County Administrative Court granted the Social Council's request for public care in a judgment of 17 December 1985.   The judgment was upheld, on appeal, by the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) of Jönköping and by the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten) on 19 June 1986 and 22 December 1987, respectively. The Courts considered that, during a relatively short period of time, Katarzyna had suffered a number of injuries and been bruised in a way that showed that her mother had not properly cared for her and that her home environment entailed a danger to her health and development. The Supreme Administrative Court found that she had been maltreated or otherwise subjected to physical violence.   There was no finding that the applicant had maltreated her.           On 8 March 1988 the applicant made a request to the Regional Public Prosecution Authority (regionåklagarmyndigheten) of Kalmar that the decision of the District Prosecutor of 10 October 1985 be reviewed and found to be correct.   The Regional Public Prosecution Authority, on 21 March 1988, decided not to review the decision nor to take any other action in the matter.   The applicant then requested that the Office of the Prosecutor-General (riksåklagaren) review the decision of the Regional Public Prosecution Authority and establish that the decision of the District Prosecutor was correct.   The Office of the Prosecutor-General on 24 May 1988 decided not to examine the request.   COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains that there has been a violation of his right to a fair and public hearing as guaranteed by Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   He maintains that, although the District Prosecutor decided to discontinue the investigation against him regarding the suspected maltreatment of Katarzyna, it is clear from the actions of the social authorities, and from the judgments of the Courts in the care proceedings, that the social authorities, as well as the Courts, consider the applicant to be guilty of having assaulted Katarzyna.   He submits that he did not have access to a court to have the question of his guilt examined.     THE LAW           The applicant complains that he did not have access to a procedure satisfying the conditions of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention for the purpose of establishing whether he was guilty of having assaulted Katarzyna.           Under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) everyone is entitled, in the determination of any criminal charge against him, to a fair and public hearing by a tribunal.   However, according to the Commission's case-law, this provision cannot be construed so as to bar the prosecution from formally discontinuing criminal proceedings or from not pursuing charges (No. 8233/78, Dec. 3.10.79, D.R. 17 p. 122).           It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.             For these reasons, the Commission           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE       Secretary to the Commission            President of the Commission             (H.C. KRÜGER)                         (C.A. NØRGAARD)