CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 11 avril 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 } Application No. 12213/86     Jon AXELSSON, Roy GASPER, Lars-Erik HJELM and Stig NISSEN against   SWEDEN   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 11 April 1989)   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                               page   I.       INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-16)                             1           A.   The application (paras. 2-4)                       1           B.   The proceedings (paras. 5-11)                      1           C.   The present Report (paras. 12-16)                  2     II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS (paras. 17-39)              3           A.   The particular circumstances of the case           3             (paras. 17-29)           B.   The relevant domestic law and practice             5             (paras. 30-39)     III.     OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras. 40-60)               8           A.   Point at issue (para. 40)                          8           B.   Article 6 of the Convention                        8             (paras. 41-58)               a.   Applicability of Article 6 para. 1             8                 (paras. 42-54)                   aa.   Was there a dispute regarding a           8                      "right"? (paras. 43-53)                   bb.   Was the right "civil" in character?       10                      (paras. 54-56)               b.   Compliance with Article 6 para. 1 of           10                 the Convention (paras. 57-59)               Conclusion (para. 60)                              11   Dissenting opinion of MM. Trechsel, Weitzel, Schermers and Campinos                                         12         APPENDIX I       History of the proceedings                     13                 before the Commission   APPENDIX II      Decision on the admissibility                  14                 of the application 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 applicants, Jon Axelsson, Roy Gasper, Lars-Erik Hjelm and Stig Nissen, are Swedish citizens born in 1952, 1940, 1935 and 1946 respectively.   The applicants are represented before the Commission by Mr.   Göran Ravnsborg, a university lecturer at the University of Lund.   3.       The application is directed against Sweden.   The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Mr.   Hans Corell, Ambassador, Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Stockholm.   4.       The case concerns the refusal of the Swedish authorities to grant to the applicants reserve taxi licences in connection with their taxi business.   The applicants complain that they have no access to court in order to have the administrative decisions reviewed and allege accordingly a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.     B.       The proceedings   5.       The application was introduced on 15 January 1986 and registered on 2 June 1986.   6.       On 7 December 1987, the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite them to submit before 4 March 1988 their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicants' complaints under Articles 6, 11 and 14 of the Convention.   7.       The Government sent their written observations on 28 March 1988, after an extension of the time-limit, and the applicants' observations in reply were received on 18 May 1988.   8.       The Commission considered the application again on 10 October 1988 and declared admissible the applicants' complaints under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   It declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.   9.       The parties were then invited to submit any additional observations or further evidence which they wished to put before the Commission.   10.      The Government submitted further observations on 12 January 1989 and the applicants' supplementary observations were received on 30 January 1989.   11.      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   12.      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, Acting President                      S. TRECHSEL                      G. SPERDUTI                      E. BUSUTTIL                      G. JÖRUNDSSON                      A. WEITZEL                      H.G. SCHERMERS                      H. DANELIUS                      J. CAMPINOS                      H. VANDENBERGHE                 Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 MM.   F. MARTINEZ                      C.L. ROZAKIS                 Mrs.   J. LIDDY                 Mr.   L. LOUCAIDES   13.      The text of the Report was adopted by the Commission on 11 April 1989 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   14.      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 State concerned of its obligations under the Convention.   15.      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 as APPENDIX II.   16.      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.       The particular circumstances of the case   17.      The applicants are taxi owners and holders of taxi licences for the area of Malmö.   They are members of ROYSTAXI Economic Association founded in 1981.   18.      According to the 1979 Act on Commercial Transportation (yrkestrafiklagen) and the 1979 Ordinance on Commercial Transportation (yrkestrafikförordningen), taxi traffic may be conducted only by persons who have a transportation licence.   In addition to this licence, a licence-holder can obtain a reserve licence applicable to a reserve car.   Both kinds of licences can be obtained upon application to the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen).   19.      In April 1980 the County Administrative Board of the County of Malmöhus granted the Malmö Taxi Economic Association (MTEA) 35 reserve licences.   MTEA already had 55 such licences.   Two months later the Board rejected Mr.   Gasper's application for a short-time reserve licence.   Mr.   Gasper filed a new application for a permanent reserve licence, which was rejected by the Board on 25 March 1981.   Mr.   Gasper appealed to the Board of Transport (transportrådet) which rejected the appeal.   The Board referred in its decision to the 90 reserve licences held by MTEA as satisfying the need in the zone, and added that the supervision of the actual demand for taxi transportation was best carried out through MTEA's dispatch exchange to which the members of ROYSTAXI did not subscribe.   20.      On 16 June 1981 and 28 July 1981 respectively, the County Administrative Board rejected two further applications for reserve licences from Mr.   Gasper.   On 27 November 1981 a similar application from Mr.   Hjelm was rejected by the County Administrative Board.   21.      On 27 November 1981 an application for a reserve licence filed by Mr.   Nissen was rejected by the County Administrative Board which referred to the 90 reserve licences of MTEA and the supervisory function of the dispatch exchange as well as to the earlier rejections of ROYSTAXI's members' applications.   Mr.   Nissen appealed to the Board of Transport which rejected the appeal.   Mr.   Nissen submitted a further appeal to the Government which rejected the appeal on 2 September 1982.   22.      In September 1984, all the applicants filed a new application for reserve licences.   In their request, they stated that their capacity to cope with their customers would be under strain without further licences, that they were being discriminated against in relation to MTEA and that reserve licences had no connection with affiliation to a particular dispatch exchange.   In a written opinion submitted to the County Administrative Board, the municipality of Malmö found that there was no reason why the licences should not be granted, while MTEA submitted inter alia that there was an over-establishment of taxi businesses in the area and that MTEA had resources to cope with even a steep increase in the demand for services.   The Trade Union of Swedish Transport Workers (svenska transportarbetareförbundet) held that there was no need for supplementary licences at that time, though it considered two reserve licences should be granted to the association ROYSTAXI. 23.      On 7 November 1984, the County Administrative Board refused the applicants' request, stating:           "According to Chapter 2 Section 11 of the Act on Commercial         Transportation a transportation licence may be granted only         when the envisaged transportation service is deemed necessary         and otherwise appropriate.   The County Administrative Board         is under the obligation to consider the total offer of taxi         vehicles in a transportation zone in relation to the demand.         In view of the excessive establishment in the taxi business         in the transportation zone of Malmö-Burlöv, the County         Administrative Board holds that there is no need for further         licences at present."   24.      The applicants appealed to the Board of Transport arguing inter alia that the County Administrative Board's decision was not based on convincing reasons and that the decision was in breach of the applicants' right to negative freedom of association.   In an opinion submitted to the Board, the County Administrative Board stated:           "There are at present about 210 ordinary taxi licences in         the transportation zone of Malmö-Burlöv.   At present, this         is a sufficient quantity.   Apart from the ordinary licences         MTEA holds about 90 reserve licences on behalf of its         members.   However, these licences are only used to a small         extent, since MTEA has chosen to use extra commands         instead of using the reserve licences, when demand for         transportation is high.   Occasionally, however, there may         be a need for further taxi vehicles, for instance at Christmas         and at New Year etc.   Of course, it is also a matter of         great interest to the appellants to be able to use their         reserve vehicles as much as possible.   The County         Administrative Board, however, is not prepared to grant the         appellants reserve licences at present.   One important         reason for this is the following.   In the autumn of 1984         the economic association ROYSTAXI has started a dispatch         exchange of its own, in cooperation with Securitas,         Southern Sweden AB.   The County Administrative Board has         requested the association to establish a command plan for         its activity, but the association has refused to do so.         Without a command plan it will be difficult to prevent         reserve licences from being used to such an extent that         they may compete with ordinary licences.   The County         Administrative Board also calls attention to the fact         that MTEA is holding an extra general assembly on         29 January 1984 to take a final decision regarding an         amendment of its statutes, which will mean that the         dispatch exchange may become accessible also to independent         subscribers.   If the dispatch exchange is opened,         negotiations to bring about cooperation between these two         associations should start as soon as possible.   In that         context, the question of reserve licences should be reviewed.         One prerequisite for this is, however, that the County         Administrative Board be given the possibility to control         the activity by means of a command plan.   The County         Administrative Board advises against upholding the appeal."   25.      The applicants' appeal was dismissed on 8 March 1985, the Board of Transport holding that when assessing the necessity of a licence, consideration must be given to the number of such licences within the entire area and against this background, it could not be said that there was any need for further licences.   26.      The applicants appealed against this decision to the Government arguing again that they were discriminated against and that their right to negative freedom of association had been violated and in addition they claimed damages and costs.   The County Administrative Board in an opinion to the Government reported that MTEA had changed its statutes and that a meeting had been held between MTEA and ROYSTAXI:           "In this context, MTEA assured that if ROYSTAXI was to join         the common dispatch exchange of MTEA, ROYSTAXI would also         be permitted to have the 90 reserve licences at its disposal.         From what has now been said it appears, however, in the         opinion of the County Administrative Board, that ROYSTAXI         does not wish to join the common dispatch exchange.   It may         be added that the County Administrative Board has asked         ROYSTAXI to hand in a project for a command plan to the         Board.   In spite of reminders, no such plan has been         submitted.   Considering the circumstances now mentioned, and         in view of what has been stated in (the Board's) decision,         the County Administrative Board requests that the appeal         be rejected."   27.      The Government dismissed the applicants' appeal on 5 September 1985.   28.      On 17 April 1986 the County Administrative Board granted 13 reserve licences to a new transportation organisation, the TS Taxi Transport Service with a special permit of non-connection with the local taxi dispatch exchange.   The Board of Transport reversed this decision, but the decision of the Board of Transport was in its turn quashed by the Government on 4 December 1986 and the grant of the licences was then confirmed.   29.      In or about 1988, MM. Axelsson, Hjelm and Nissen lodged new applications for personal taxi reserve licences.   On 19 October 1988, the County Administrative Board granted a number of reserve licences to ROYSTAXI with a special permit of non-connection with a local taxi dispatch exchange.     B.       The relevant domestic law and practice   30.      Commercial and public transportation is governed by the 1979 Act on Commercial Transportation and the 1979 Ordinance on Commercial Transportation.   Such transportation is defined as transportation service - by car, truck or bus - offered to the public for a fee (Chapter 1 Section 4 of the Act).   Such transportation may only be conducted by persons in possession of a valid transportation licence (Chapter 2 Section 1 of the Act).   Licences are issued for either goods or passenger transportation.   31.      Licences are only to be granted to persons (physical or legal), who are deemed suitable to conduct the service (Chapter 2 Section 3 of the Act).   In examining applications, such factors as professional qualifications and personal and economic circumstances are considered. 32.      Other conditions for passenger transportation are that the service is deemed necessary and otherwise appropriate (Chapter 2 Sections 11 and 17 of the Act).   33.      Specific conditions are often appended to passenger transportation licences.   One such condition may be for instance that the licence concerns reserve transportation and that it may be used only when there is a need for it, and when ordinary transportation licences are already being used.   34.      Holders of licences for transportation on demand with lighter vehicles (taxis) are under the obligation to transport passengers and baggage on such conditions as are applicable to that kind of transportation.   Availability is regulated by so called command plans. A maximum fare rate is established by the authorities.   35.      The licence holder for taxi transportation must be connected to a dispatch exchange which is common to one or several transportation zones.   The County Administrative Board may grant an exemption from this obligation on special grounds (Chapter 4 Section 10 of the Ordinance).   Generally, there is no more than one dispatch exchange in each transportation zone.   The establishment of several smaller units is not economically feasible because of the high cost of modern computerised exchanges.   The possibility of a dispensation from the obligation to subscribe to a dispatch exchange is mainly available to cater for the needs of taxi services in the vast sparsely populated areas of the country.   36.      A passenger transportation licence can be revoked, if the licence has been misused in such a way that the holder can no longer be deemed suitable to conduct the service.   In less serious cases, a warning may be issued.   If the service is not kept up, the licence should also be revoked (Chapter 3 Sections 1 and 2 of the Act).   37.      Licences are usually issued by the County Administrative Board.   The Board also decides what specific conditions should be met under the licence.   Before it is decided whether to grant a licence for transportation on demand, the competent Police Authority should be asked to state its opinion.   Municipalities, organs responsible for communications, associations of those who carry out commercial transportation and such trade unions as may be concerned by the envisaged transportation activity shall also be given an opportunity to submit their opinion.   The County Administrative Board also has a supervisory function and is authorised to revoke licences.   Appeals against the decisions taken by a Board may be lodged with the Board of Transport.   As a last instance, the Government may review decisions made by the Board (Chapter 2 Section 1 and Chapter 12 Section 2 of the Ordinance).   38.      Reserve licences are granted to enable taxi enterprises to provide their customers with acceptable services when demand is high. Reserve licences are transportation licences that are subject to the condition that they may be used only to a limited extent, for instance when other licences are already being used.   Such licences are, according to widespread practice, usually granted to the economic associations of taxiowners or to other entities that manage dispatch exchanges.   The reason for this is that those who manage a dispatch exchange are best placed to decide when supplementary vehicles are required.   The licences are generally used in turn by those connected to the dispatch exchange.   Individual licence holders may also be granted a reserve licence.   39.      In January 1988, the Government submitted to Parliament two Bills on the deregulation of commercial transportation (Government Bills 1987/88:50 and 1987/88:78).   The new Act on Commercial Transportation, which modifies the conditions for granting taxi licences and for running a taxi business, came into force on 1 January 1989.   The new Act also grants a right of appeal to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) against most decisions regarding transportation licences. III.     OPINION OF THE COMMISSION     A.       Point at issue   40.      The only issue to be decided is whether or not Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention is applicable in the present case and, if so, whether or not there has been a violation of that provision.     B.       Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention   41.      The applicants allege a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in that no court remedy was available in respect of the refusal of the administrative authorities to grant them reserve taxi licences.   The Government submit that this complaint falls outside the scope of Article 6 (Art. 6).           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."   a.       Applicability of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)   42.      The applicability of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention depends on whether the applicants were seeking the determination of a dispute (French: contestation) regarding a "right" and, if so, whether that "right" was "civil" in character.   aa.      Was there a dispute regarding a "right"?   43.      Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) applies only to disputes ("contestations") over "rights and obligations" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law.   It does not in itself guarantee any particular content for "rights and obligations" in the substantive law of the Contracting States (cf.   Eur.   Court H.R., Lithgow and Others judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 70, para. 192).   On the other hand, it is not decisive whether a certain benefit, or possible claim, is characterised as a "right" under the domestic legal system.   This is so since the term "right" must be given an autonomous interpretation in the context of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1). In its Report in the case of W v. the United Kingdom (Comm.   Report 15.10.85, para. 115, Eur.   Court H.R., Series A no. 121-A, pp. 48-49) the Commission held that:           "Even where a benefit can be granted as a matter of discretion         rather than as a matter or right, a claim for such a benefit         may well be considered to fall within the ambit of (Article 6         para. 1 (Art. 6-1))."   44.      It is established case-law that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) guarantees to everyone who claims that an interference by a public authority with his "civil rights" is unlawful the right to submit that claim to a tribunal satisfying the requirements of that provision (see Eur.   Court H.R., Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 20, para. 44).   The claim or dispute must be "genuine and of a serious nature" (see e.g.   Eur.   Court H.R., Benthem judgment of 23 October 1985, Series A no. 97, p. 14, para. 32).   The dispute may relate not only to the actual existence of a right but also to its scope or the manner in which it may be exercised.   The dispute may concern both questions of fact and questions of law (see e.g.   Eur.   Court H.R., Van Marle and Others judgment of 26 June 1984, Series A no. 101, p. 11, para. 32).   45.      The Government have argued that the discretion of the County Administrative Board in granting taxi licences is so wide that the applicants could not be said to have any "right" within the meaning of the Convention.   46.      Pursuant to the 1979 Act on Commercial Transportation and the 1979 Ordinance on Commercial Transportation, notably Chapter 2 Sections 2, 11 and 17 of the Act, reserve taxi licences may be granted, provided that the applicant is suitable and that the service in question is deemed necessary and otherwise appropriate.   The legislation does not indicate any more precise criteria for determining in which cases licences shall be granted.   The public authorities therefore enjoy a wide discretion, and the question arises whether the applicants could, on arguable grounds, claim a right under Swedish law to obtain reserve taxi licences.   47.      In this connection, the Commission recalls the case of H. v. Belgium (Eur.   Court H.R., judgment of 30 November 1987, Series A no. 127, pp. 31-32, paras. 41-43), in which the European Court held that there was a dispute over a "right" under Belgian law when the Council of the Ordre des Avocats was called upon to decide whether there were "exceptional circumstances" which warranted the applicant's readmission as an avocat.   The Court noted that the term "exceptional circumstances" was capable of being interpreted and applied in a wide variety of ways (para. 42) and that the Council had some discretion in deciding whether the requirement of "exceptional circumstances" had been met (para. 43).   Nevertheless, the Court found that the applicant could arguably maintain that he satisfied that condition and that there was, therefore, a dispute over a "right" in the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (para. 43).   48.      Similarly, in the case of the Estates of Mr. and Mrs.   Skärby and Others v.   Sweden (Comm.   Rep. 16.3.89) the Commission found that there was a dispute over a "right" under Swedish law with regard to a decision by a local Building Committee not to grant the applicants an exemption from the regulations in a building plan.   49.      As in the case of H. v.   Belgium and the case of the Estates of Mr. and Mrs.   Skärby and Others, the discretion at issue in the present case was wide but not unlimited and had to be exercised in the framework of the applicable law.   In its judgment in the Pudas case (Eur.   Court H.R., Pudas judgment of 27 October 1987, Series A no. 125, pp. 40-41, paras. 32-34), the European Court stated that it followed from "generally recognised legal and administrative principles that the authorities did not have an unfettered discretion" when deciding whether or not to revoke a traffic licence.   50.      According to the said "legal and administrative principles", the County Administrative Board was obliged, when examining the applicants' request, to take all the different public and private interests involved into account as well as the general purposes of the applicable transportation legislation.   It also had the task to determine on this basis whether there were sufficient reasons for granting the request for a licence.   It is also clear that the Board was under an obligation not to let its decision be influenced by any irrelevant considerations and to decide on the issue under a fair procedure and in accordance with general legal rules such as the obligation to give equal treatment to all citizens.   51.      The Commission also notes that, in comparison with the case of H. v.   Belgium and the case of the Estates of Mr. and Mrs.   Skärby and Others, the criteria for granting the licences indicated in the Act on Commercial Transportation are more precise than the criteria in the corresponding provisions in the above-mentioned cases.   A further difference between the cases is that, in the present case, the dispute concerned a normal administrative decision as to whether a licence should be granted, whereas in the other cases the question was whether an exemption should be granted from an existing prohibition or exclusion.   52.      In the present case, the applicants are of the opinion that if the Board had made a fair assessment of the different interests involved, it should have granted the reserve licences in their case. Consequently, they must be understood to claim that, in the circumstances, they had a right to obtain such licences and that they were denied this right by the Board.   The applicants allege that they were discriminated against as compared to other taxi firms such as MTEA and that reserve licences should have no connection with affiliation to a particular dispatch exchange.   The applicants further submit that the Board's decision was not based on convincing reasons and breached the applicants' right to negative freedom of association.   53.      In these circumstances, the applicants' allegation is not only that the County Administrative Board exercised its discretion to their disadvantage but that the Board took a decision which was influenced by irrelevant considerations and therefore contrary to Swedish law. For these reasons the Commission finds that there existed a "serious" and "genuine" dispute over the applicants' "rights" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   bb.      Was the right "civil" in character?   54.      The Commission recalls that the character of the right to obtain a taxi licence has already been considered in the Pudas case (Eur.   Court H.R., Pudas judgment, loc. cit., pp. 15-16, paras. 35-38, Comm.   Report 4.12.85 in the same case annexed to the Pudas judgment, paras. 43-45, p. 25).   Both the Commission and the Court found that the licence was related to the applicant's exercise of his business activities as a taxi-driver and that the dispute accordingly concerned a "civil right".   55.      In the present case, the dispute concerns the grant of a reserve taxi licence and not an ordinary taxi licence as in the Pudas case.   The Commission finds however that it is similarly connected with the applicants' exercise of a commercial activity, carried out with the object of earning profits and based on a contractual relationship between the licence holder and his customers.   56.      Consequently, the Commission finds that the dispute concerns "civil" rights of the applicants and that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) is applicable. b.       Compliance with Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention   57.      The Commission has next examined whether the applicants had the possibility of submitting the dispute as to the reserve taxi licences to a "tribunal" satisfying the conditions of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   58.      The Commission recalls that an appeal lay from the County Administrative Board to the Board of Transport and from there to the Government.   The Commission finds, and the Government do not dispute, that these proceedings did not satisfy the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   The Commission further recalls that the Government admit that the applicants were not entitled to take their complaints before a tribunal as required by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1).   The Commission finds that indeed no such remedy was available to the applicants.   59.      It follows that the applicants did not have at their disposal a procedure satisfying the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) in respect of the dispute which arose over the refusal of the reserve taxi licences.           Conclusion   60.      The Commission concludes, by 12 to 4 votes, that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.       Secretary to the Commission          Acting President of the Commission                (H.C. KRÜGER)                          (J.A. FROWEIN)     Dissenting opinion of MM. Trechsel, Weitzel, Schermers and Campinos                   We regret that we are unable to share the Commission's opinion that Article 6 para. 1 is violated in the present case.           We agree that under certain circumstances a claim for a benefit may be considered to fall within the ambit of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   It depends however on the specific facts of each case whether this is so.           In the present case the applicants claimed reserve licences for the operation of their taxi service.   Such reserve licences are granted by the competent authority insofar as it deems them to be "necessary and otherwise appropriate" (para. 32).           It is, in our view, obvious that the authorities dispose of a large discretion in determining these issues and we find that the applicants are in reality not complaining about the legality of the decision but simply about the way in which the County Administrative Board of the County of Malmöhus has exercised its discretion.   A complaint that an administrative authority has exercised its discretion wrongly by not granting a benefit, in our opinion, falls outside the ambit of Article 6 para. 1.   In essence, we find no difference in the present case as compared to the case of the Estate of Mr. and Mrs.   Skärby and Others v.   Sweden, No. 12258/86, and, as in the dissenting opinion by Mr.   Nørgaard and others in that case, we do not find a violation of Article 6 para. 1 in the present case.   Appendix I         HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS                  Date                                   Item ________________________________________________________________     15.01.86                         Introduction of the application   02.06.86                         Registration of the application     Examination of admissibility     07.12.87                         Commission's deliberations and                                 decision to invite the Government                                 to submit observations in writing   28.03.88                         Government's observations   18.05.88                         Applicants' reply   10.10.88                         Commission's deliberations and                                 decision to declare the application                                 partially admissible and partially                                 inadmissible     Examination of the merits     12.01.89                         Government's supplementary observations   30.01.89                         Applicants' supplementary observations   11.03.89                         Commission's consideration of state                                 of proceedings   11.04.89                         Commission's deliberations on the                                 merits, final votes and adoption of                                 the Report