CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 8 juillet 1991

.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. 16226/90                       by S.                       against Sweden             The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 8 July 1991, the following members being present:                 MM. S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A. WEITZEL                   H.G. SCHERMERS              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE              Mr.   F. MARTINEZ RUIZ              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              MM.   J.-C. GEUS                   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                Mr.   K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Second Chamber           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 May 1987 by S. against Sweden and registered on 28 February 1990 under file No. 16226/90;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 21 February 1991 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 24 April 1991;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.           The applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1925 and resident at Pajala.   He is a reindeer breeder by profession.   Before the Commission he is represented by Mr.   Johan Caph, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.           The applicant's request for a permit to keep 400 reindeer instead of 200 as granted by the Agricultural Committee (lantbruksnämnden) of the County of Norrbotten on 15 January 1986 was refused by the National Board of Agriculture (lantbruksstyrelsen) on 21 November 1986.   The applicant's further appeal to the Government was rejected on 29 January 1987.     COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains that he did not have access to a tribunal satisfying the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention for the determination of his request to keep 400 reindeer. He alleges that a group of reindeer breeders unlawfully were granted permits to keep reindeer and that this is the reason why his request was partly refused.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 20 May 1987 and registered on 28 February 1990.           On 7 November 1990 the Commission decided to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.           The Government submitted their observations on 21 February 1991 and the applicant's observations in reply were submitted on 24 April 1991.     THE LAW           The application concerns an alleged violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) first sentence of the Convention in that the Swedish legal system did not allow the applicant to have his request for a permit to carry on licensed reindeer herding tried by a tribunal meeting the requirements of the above provision which 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..."           The Commission has taken cognizance of the parties submissions.   After a preliminary examination of the case the Commission finds that the application concerns a serious issue which must be examined on the merits.   The application cannot therefore be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   No other reason for declaring the application inadmissible has been established.           For these reasons, the Commission unanimously           DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE         without prejudging the merits of the case.       Secretary to the Second Chamber         President of the Second Chamber                  (K. ROGGE)                              (S. TRECHSEL)