CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 7 mai 1990

.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. 13347/87                         by J. and E.H.                         against Sweden           The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 7 May 1990, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER                   H. VANDENBERGHE              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 20 October 1987 by J. and E.H. against Sweden and registered on 26 October 1987 under file No. 13347/87;           Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having regard to the Government's written observations of 28 November 1989 and the applicants' written observations of 2 January 1990;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The facts of the case, as they appear from the parties' submissions, may be summarised as follows.           The applicants are J. and E.H., born in 1945 and 1948 respectively and resident in Stockholm.   Mr. H. is a practising lawyer and Mrs. H. is a secretary.           The applicants have rented a four-roomed flat at Spånga since 1979.   The landlord is Aktiebolaget Svenska Bostäder, a limited liability company, which is a public utility housing company, i.e. a company which is at least partly publicly owned and the aim of which is to provide housing without giving profit to its owners.   Aktiebolaget Svenska Bostäder is connected to the Federation of Public Utility Housing Companies (Sveriges allmännyttiga bostadsföretag, SABO).   The tenancy agreement contains a negotiation clause (förhandlingsklausul) to the effect that the tenant undertakes, without prior termination of the agreement, to accept what has been agreed upon or will be agreed upon between the company (the landlord) and the Tenants' Union under the applicable negotiation agreement, notably the level of the rent and other rent conditions.   In accordance with this agreement, the landlord and the Tenants' Union regularly review the rent for the flats in the house in which the applicants live.   As compensation for its work in conducting the negotiations, the Tenants' Union receives 0,3% of the rent from the landlord.           In 1979 the landlord and the Tenants' Union of the area of Metropolitan Stockholm (hyresgästföreningen i Stor-Stockholm) made an agreement concerning leisure facilities and one concerning consultation with tenants (boendeinflytande).   These agreements have been replaced by new agreements applicable as from 1 July 1986. According to the agreements, the Tenants' Union receives from the company for its activities an amount corresponding to altogether O.9% of the rent paid during the year for flats covered by the agreements.           The applicants gave notice to terminate the tenancy agreement for the purpose of changing the conditions of the agreement in accordance with Chapter 12 Section 54 of the Land Act (jordabalken) as from 1 October 1983.   The dispute was subsequently referred to the Rent Board (hyresnämnden) of the Stockholm County.   The applicants claimed that the negotiation clause should be removed from the contract and that the rent should be reduced as from 1 October 1983 by altogether 1.05%.   The applicants challenged the lay assessors of the Rent Board.   The challenge was rejected by the Board on 15 November 1983.   On 19 March 1984 the Rent Board delivered its decision rejecting the applicants' claims.           The applicants appealed to the House and Tenancy Court (bostadsdomstolen).   The applicants challenged the lay assessors of the Court, a challenge which was rejected by the Court on 16 February 1987.           By judgment of 30 April 1987 the House and Tenancy Court rejected the applicants' claims.   The Court was composed of seven judges, of whom three were professional judges and four were lay assessors.   One of the professional judges dissented.   The four lay assessors were Mr. B. Claesson, who was Managing Director of Aktiebolaget Stockholmshem, a public utility housing company affiliated to SABO, Mrs. M. Andréasson Frohnert, who was Head of Division at SABO, Mrs. S. Johansson, who was employed by the National Tenants' Union, and Mrs. E. Kaplan, who was employed by the Tenants' Union of Metropolitan Stockholm.   COMPLAINTS           The applicants originally alleged violations of Article 6 para. 1, Articles 8, 11 and 14 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   They subsequently withdrew their complaints under Articles 8 and 11 of the Convention.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 20 October 1987 and registered on 26 October 1987.           On 4 September 1989 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government and invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application limited to the issue under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.           The Government's observations were received by letter dated 28 November 1989 and the applicants' observations were dated 2 January 1990.   THE LAW   1.       The applicants allege a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention on the ground that the Rent Board and the House and Tenancy Court cannot be regarded as independent and impartial tribunals.   Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) first sentence reads as follows:   "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."           The issue which arises is whether, in the circumstances of the case, the House and Tenancy Court satisfied the conditions of being an "independent and impartial tribunal" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1).           The Government waive objections against the admissibility of this complaint and admit that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) in this respect.           The Commission finds that this complaint cannot be regarded as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   As no other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established, this complaint is admissible.   2.       The applicants originally complained of violations of Articles 8 and 11 (Art. 8, 11) of the Convention.   However, in the light of the judgment in the Langborger case (Eur. Court H.R., Langborger judgment of 22 June 1989, Series A no. 155), they have withdrawn these complaints.   The Commission finds no reason to examine these complaints.   3.       The applicants also complain that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention on the ground that they have to make financial contributions to the Tenants' Union. Unable to establish the exact amount, the applicants estimate that they have paid 10,000 SEK to the Union during the period 1979 to 1988.           Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) reads:   "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.   No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.   The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."           The Commission recalls that a similar complaint was made in the Langborger case.   In that case the Commission observed (Langborger v. Sweden, Comm. Rep., 8.10.87, paras. 158-159, Eur. Court H.R., Series A no. 155, p. 36) that the applicant had freely entered into the tenancy agreement according to which the future rent was fixed after negotiations between the Tenants' Union and the landlords' union.   The Commission considered that in view of the low percentage and amount concerned - 0.3% of the rent in that case - the applicant had failed to substantiate an interference with his right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).   This view was confirmed by the Court (see above-mentioned Langborger judgment, p. 17, para. 41).           The Commission considers that similar considerations apply in the present case.   Although the amount involved is higher in this case, the Commission finds no indication of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).           It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   4.       Finally, the applicants allege a violation of Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention which prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. However, the Commission finds no indication of a violation of Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention.   It follows that this aspect of the application is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission           DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits, the         complaint that the applicants' case was not determined by an         "independent and impartial tribunal" (Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)         of the Convention);           DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.     Secretary to the Commission               President of the Commission            (H.C. KRÜGER)                           (C.A. NØRGAARD)