CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 10 octobre 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. 14220/88                       by Göran RAVNSBORG                       against Sweden           The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 10 October 1990, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   F. ERMACORA                   G. SPERDUTI                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ RUIZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                   J.-C. GEUS                   A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO                   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                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 12 July 1988 by Göran RAVNSBORG against Sweden and registered on 16 September 1988 under file No. 14220/88;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The applicant is a Swedish citizen born in 1933 and resident in Lund.   The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.           The applicant is personal general proxy for his adoptive mother K. and administrator ("god man") for his mother's friend M. Both K. and M. became unable to care for themselves due to old age and with the applicant's agreement K. and M. were placed in a nursing home by the Municipality of Gothenburg.   After one year in the home, K. and M. became liable to pay a medical care fee calculated on the basis of their net income and they received invoices from the home.   The applicant duly paid the invoices on behalf of K. and M.           The applicant later discovered that the home was a charitable foundation.   He considered that there was no provision in law for the home to act on behalf of the Municipality and that he had paid the medical care fees to the wrong creditor.   He stopped making the payments and instituted proceedings seeking a declaration from the Court that the home was not the legal creditor and had no right or lawful mandate to act on behalf of the Municipality of Gothenburg.   He also claimed repayment of fees.           Mr.   F., M.'s Chief Guardian (överförmyndare), intervened to order the applicant as M.'s administrator to continue to pay the medical fees.   The applicant refused.   Mr.   F. brought proceedings seeking an order of the Court dismissing the applicant as administrator.   The Chief Guardian Board of the Municipality intervened and Mr.   F. was removed from his position as M.'s Chief Guardian.           The Chief Guardian Board asked the District Court (tings- rätten) of Gothenburg to appoint an additional administrator to act with the applicant in respect of K. The applicant considered this an outrageous intervention and counterclaimed, seeking the immediate dismissal of all the members of the Chief Guardian Board and making very sharp comments as to the way its members performed their duties as public trustees.   In a letter to the Court, the applicant stated, inter alia:           "As a general assessment about the Chief Guardian Board's         actions, which are strongly criticised on good grounds, it         should be stated that the Board can be described as a basket of         municipal political rotten eggs (rötägg) of different colours         but of a common denominator and super ideology, i.e. the         fascist exercise of power, in connection with which the rights         and reasonable interests of the individual municipal member -         if their existence is at all recognised in their         intoxication with power - may never involve any powerful         questioning of the demands of the collective or the absolute         right of the politician governed (politrukstyrda) subject,         such as it in each individual case is defined as to its         contents by the so called democratically ... representative         People's Court (whose official name is the Boards or Councils         of the Municipality of Gothenburg) with their manning by, to         a surprisingly high degree, local public mob or - as above -         pure rotten eggs."           On 18 May 1987, the District Court of Gothenburg, in application of Chapter 9 Section 5 of the Code of Judicial Procedure (rättegångsbalken),   sentenced the applicant without a public hearing to a fine of 1000 SEK for contempt of court in respect of the statements in the above letter.           On 17 June 1987, the District Court rejected, without a public hearing, the Chief Guardian Board's claim for an administrator as well as the applicant's claim for the dismissal of the members of that Board.           The applicant appealed against both the decisions of 18 May 1987 and 17 June 1987.   He asked for a public hearing in respect of his appeal against the fine for contempt of court.   In his appeal against the decision of 17 June 1987, the applicant requested that the case be referred back to the District Court for re-examination, including an oral hearing.           The Court of Appeal for Western Sweden (hovrätten för Västra Sverige) on 4 November 1987 upheld the District Court's fine and in addition held the applicant guilty of contempt of court in respect of statements made in his appeal and imposed an additional fine of 1000 SEK. On page 12 of his appeal, the applicant had stated:           "If the Court of Appeal would, in any respect, come to a         different judgment from what I have requested, I will of         course appeal, in order to be able to submit an application         immediately to the European Commission and to the Human         Rights Committee in Geneva respectively.   The risk is         extremely small that a generally lethargic and, as a result         of its members' many years of indoctrination against human         rights in the Government Offices, lax final instance will         grant leave to appeal in a case like this."           The Court of Appeal stated that a hearing was not necessary in the case.   In respect of the applicant's allegation that the District Court had acted wrongly when not giving him the opportunity of commenting when the issue of convicting him of contempt of court had arisen, the Court of Appeal found that this omission was in accordance with case-law and legal doctrine when the question of punishment for contempt of court in a letter to a Court had arisen.   There was thus no fault on the District Court's part in that respect.           In another decision of the same date, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against the merits of the decision of 17 June 1987.   The Court found that, with regard to the appointment of an administrator, the District Court's decision was not to the detriment of the applicant or K.   This part of the appeal could therefore not be examined.   The Court also found that the applicant and K. had no right to appeal against the decision not to dismiss the members of the Board.   Finally, the Court found that the applicant had made improper statements in his letter of appeal and fined him another 1000 SEK. The applicant had stated on page 7 of his appeal:           "The fact that we ... ask that the case be referred back to         the District Court for a further examination does not imply         that we, even for a moment, would accept that the case         ... once again is dominated by, for instance, the Chief Judge         Sven Wieselgren's far-reaching fascist way of presiding with         the court's ... gross partiality in favour of municipal interests,         collegiate corruption, and abuse of public authority through         autocracy, shadow fear and dark man principles.   Over all,         our experience of the generally autocratic deeply partial         implementation of norms by the District Court in favour of the         municipality, as it is performed by one Stefan         Wikmark, one Sven Ordqvist, one Kenneth Ström and one         Sven Wieselgren ... is such that we will ask for the         composition of a special District Court in which the President         is chosen from outside the Gothenburg District Court."           The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court (högsta domstolen) which refused leave to appeal on 5 January 1988.           Chapter 9 Section 5 of the Code of Judicial Procedure provided as follows at the relevant time:           (Swedish)           "Den som vid sammanträde inför rätten stör förhandlingen         eller fotograferar i rättssalen eller bryter mot föreskrift         eller förbud, som har meddelats med stöd av 5 kap. 9§, döms         till böter.   Till samma straff döms den som muntligen inför         rätten eller i rättegångsskrift uttalar sig otillbörligt."           (English translation)           "Anyone who, at a court session, disturbs the hearing or takes         photographs in the courtroom, or fails to obey directions or         prohibitions issued by virtue of Chapter 5, Section 9, shall         be punished by a fine.   The same punishment shall be imposed on         anyone who, orally or in a paper filed with the court,         expresses himself in an unseemly manner."           Section 9 of Chapter 9 provided that the maximum fine which could be imposed was one thousand crowns.   COMPLAINTS   1.       The applicant complains of the imposition of fines by the courts for contempt of court.   He complains that these decisions constituted a "secret inquisitional penal process", since he did not receive a public hearing or have any opportunity to refute the allegations.   He invokes Article 6 paras. 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention.   2.       The applicant also complains of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention in relation to the imposition of the fines.   3.       The applicant also complains of the court's refusal on 4 November 1987 to allow him a public hearing in the dispute as to the appointment of a special administrator for K.   He considered the application for such appointment was a serious attack on the right to manage one's own business and appoint one's own proxy.   He invokes Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention.   THE LAW   1.       The applicant has complained of being fined for contempt of court on three occasions without receiving a public hearing.   He has invoked Article 6 paras. 1 (Art. 6-1), 2 (Art. 2) and 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention in this regard.           The applicant has also complained that the imposition of fines for contempt of court were in violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention interfering with his freedom of expression.           The Commission considers that these complaints cannot be determined without first having obtained written observations from the parties.   The examination of this part of the application must therefore be adjourned.   2.       The applicant has also complained of the refusal of a public hearing in respect of the proceedings instituted by the Chief Guardian Board for the appointment of a new administrator.   He invokes Article 6 paras. 1 (Art. 6-1) and 3 (Art. 6-3) in this respect.           The Commission notes that the proceedings had been instituted by the Chief Guardian Board, which sought to appoint an administrator to act on behalf of K.   On 17 June 1987 the District Court rejected this application without a public hearing and on 4 November 1987, the Court of Appeal refused the applicant's appeal in which he asked for the case to be referred to the District Court for re-examination, including an oral hearing.           The Commission recalls that the District Court resolved two issues in its decision of 17 June 1987, namely the Chief Guardian Board's claim that an administrator be appointed to act with the applicant, and the applicant's claim that the members of the Chief Guardian Board be dismissed.           The Commission finds that the first mentioned issue was decided in favour of the applicant and, consequently, there remained no dispute to be determined by the Court of Appeal in that respect. As regards the second issue, the Commission finds that this dispute did not relate to the applicant's "civil rights and obligations". Nor was there any "criminal charge" against the applicant. Accordingly, Article 6 paras. 1 (Art. 6-1) and 3 (Art. 6-3) did not apply to those proceedings before the District Court.           It follows that these complaints are incompatible rationae materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).           For these reasons, the Commission by a majority           DECLARES INADMISSIBLE         the applicant's complaints concerning the refusal of a public         hearing in the proceedings relating to the appointment of a new         administrator;           DECIDES TO ADJOURN the remainder of the application.     Secretary to the Commission              President of the Commission             (H.C. KRÜGER)                             (C.A. NØRGAARD)