CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 13 juillet 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. 11899/85                       by Wasagrillen Knut Nylund AB                       against Sweden             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 13 July 1990, the following members being present:                 MM. J.A. FROWEIN, Acting President                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                   J.-C. GEUS                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 13 August 1984 by Wasagrillen Knut Nylund AB against Sweden and registered on 9 December 1985 under file No. 11899/85;           Having regard to   -        the reports provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;   -        the observations submitted by the respondent Govenment on 7 June 990 and the observations submitted in reply by the applicant on 7 June 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 applicant, Wasagrillen Knut Nylund Aktiebolag, is a limited liability company whose headquarters is at Mora.   The company is run by Mr.   Knut Nylund.   Before the Commission the applicant is represented by Mr.   Göran Ravnsborg, university lecturer at Lund.           The applicant company has run a restaurant business since 1971.   In 1975 it obtained a licence to serve wine and beer in respect of one part of its business, and in 1977 it obtained a full licence to serve alcoholic beverages.           On 22 February 1984 the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen) of the County of Kopparberg revoked the licence to serve alcoholic beverages in accordance with Section 64 of the Act on Trading in Beverages (lagen om handel med drycker).   In the decision reference was made to information from the tax department of the County Administrative Board concerning the period from May 1981 to April 1982.   According to the County Administrative Board there had been deficiencies in the book-keeping of the company with regard to the sale of beer.           The applicant company later asked for a new licence to serve alcoholic beverages.   In a decision of 21 May 1984 the County Administrative Board refused to grant a licence stating that it did not consider that the company fulfilled the requirement of suitability in Section 40 of the Act on Trading in Beverages in view of the short time which had elapsed since its previous decision and the serious nature of the facts which had formed the basis of the revocation.           The applicant company appealed against the above two decisions to the National Board of Health and Social Welfare (socialstyrelsen) which rejected the appeals in a decision of 28 June 1984.   This decision was not subject to appeal.           Mr.   Nylund was subsequently prosecuted for having committed the offence of obstruction of tax control.   He was however acquitted by the District Court (tingsrätten) of Mora on 3 September 1984, a judgment which was confirmed by the Svea Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt) on 8 November 1984.           On 16 November 1984 the County Administrative Board rejected a further request from the applicant company for a licence to serve alcoholic beverages.   The applicant company appealed against this decision to the National Board of Health and Social Welfare, which in a decision of 12 December 1984 granted the appeal and quashed the decision of the County Administrative Board.           On 14 December 1984 the applicant company was granted a new licence to serve alcoholic beverages.   COMPLAINTS           The applicant company alleges violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.           It is submitted that the withdrawal of the licence to serve alcoholic beverages from 22 February to 12 December 1984 caused a loss of about one million SEK.   The applicant company alleges that the Swedish system is purely "bureaucratic" without any possibility of having the withdrawal of the licence examined by a court.   The company further submits that the withdrawal of the licence was unfounded, since the deficiencies in the sale of beer were merely due to a change in the size of tankards from 58 to 50 cl.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 13 August 1984 and registered on 9 December 1985.           On 13 October 1986 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government without asking for observations, and to adjourn the further examination of the case pending the outcome of Application no. 10873/84, Tre Traktörer Aktiebolag v.   Sweden.           On 7 July 1989 the European Court of Human Rights delivered judgment in the Tre Traktörer Aktiebolag case (Eur.   Court H.R., Tre Traktörer Aktiebolag judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159).           On 4 October 1989, the Commission declared inadmissible the applicant's complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   It adjourned consideration of the complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and invited the parties to submit observations on the Article 6 complaint in the light of the Court's judgment in the case of Tre Traktörer Aktiebolag.           On 19 December 1989 the Government's observations were received.   The applicant's observations were submitted on 7 June 1990.   THE LAW           The applicant company complains of a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention in that it did not have access to court with regard to the withdrawal of its licence to serve alcoholic beverages.   The company also invokes Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention.           Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention provides as follows in the first sentence:   "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."           The issues which arise are whether the decision of the National Board of Health and Social Welfare dated 28 June 1984 concerned the applicant company's "civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of the above provision and, if so, whether the applicant company had available to it a procedure satisfying this provision for the determination of any dispute arising over the withdrawal of the licence to sell alcoholic beverages.           The Commission recalls that similar issues arose in the case of Tre Traktörer Aktiebolag (Eur.   Court H.R., Tre Traktörer Aktiebolag judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159) where the Court found a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in that the applicant company had no possibility of having the revocation of its licence to serve alcoholic beverages on its premises reviewed by a Court.   The Commission further notes that the respondent Government have waived objections to admissibility in this case.           In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the applicant's complaints raise questions of fact and law which require an examination on the merits.   The Commission also finds that the applicant's complaints under Article 13 (Art. 13) arise from the same factual basis.   The complaints cannot therefore be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention, but must be declared admissible, no other ground for declaring them inadmissible having been established.           For these reasons, the Commission           DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits,         the remainder of the application.          Secretary to the Commission        Acting President of the Commission                 (H.C. KRÜGER)                     (J.A. FROWEIN)