CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 13 janvier 1992

.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 }                        EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                                 SECOND CHAMBER                            APPLICATION No. 14062/88                             Maria and Martin DENEV                                     against                                     SWEDEN                              REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                          (adopted on 13 January 1992)                                TABLE OF CONTENTS   Page   I.     INTRODUCTION       (paras. 1-5) .............................................         1     II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS       (paras. 6-14) ............................................         2     III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION       (paras. 15-25) ...........................................         4        A. Complaint declared admissible       (para. 15) ...............................................         4        B. Point at issue       (para. 16) ...............................................         4        C. The violation of the Convention       (paras. 17-25) ...........................................         4             CONCLUSION ...............................................         5     APPENDIX I : Partial decision on the admissibility of the application    6   APPENDIX II: Final decision on the admissibility of the application     12   I.     INTRODUCTION   1.     The present report concerns Application No. 14062/88 by Maria and Martin Denev against Sweden, introduced on 18 February 1988 and registered on 26 July 1988.         The applicants are Swedish nationals born in 1955 and 1938 respectively. They reside at Semmering, Austria.         The Swedish Government are represented by their Agent, Mr. Håkan Berglin, Legal Adviser at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Stockholm.   2.     The application was communicated to the Government on 5 March 1990 in so far as it concerned the complaints relating to the length of proceedings (Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention) whereas the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. Following an exchange of memorials the complaints communicated were declared admissible on 10 April 1991. The decisions on admissibility are appended to this Report.   3.     Having noted that there is no basis upon which a friendly settlement within the meaning of Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention can be secured, the Commission (Second Chamber), after deliberating, adopted this Report in accordance with Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, the following members being present:                  MM.   S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A. WEITZEL                   J. C. SOYER                   H. G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS              Mrs. G. H. THUNE              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   L. LOUCAIDES     4.     In this Report the Commission states its opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a violation of the Convention by Sweden.   5.     The text of the Report is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention.   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   6.     In their application, in which they rely on Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention, the applicants complain of the length of two different sets of civil proceedings before the Swedish courts.                                          I   7.     By judgment of the Labour Court (Arbetsdomstolen) of 16 February 1983, the applicants were obliged to pay damages to two of their former employees, amounting to approximately 38,000 Swedish crowns.   This made the applicants institute, on 18 February 1983, proceedings against the former employees before the District Court (tingsrätten) of Mora, claiming that they had caused damage to the applicants by giving incorrect information or failing to tell the truth in the previous case. On 14 November 1983 the parties were called to attend an oral preparatory session at Malung on 15 December 1983.   8.     The applicants were opposed to the session taking place at Malung and accordingly they did not appear.   On 15 December 1983, the District Court of Mora pronounced judgment by default (tredskodom) as the applicants had failed to appear in court although they had been properly summoned.   On 11 January 1984 the applicants asked for the proceedings to be resumed, and on 8 November 1985 the parties were accordingly called to an oral preparatory session on 5 December 1985 during which the applicants' claim for damages was reduced to the symbolic sum of 1 Swedish crown.   9.     The case was examined again by the District Court of Mora on 3 October 1986.   After hearing the parties' arguments, and after an evaluation of the information and documents submitted, the District Court rejected the applicants' claim for damages and costs were awarded against them.   Judgment was pronounced on 31 October 1986.   10.    On 18 November 1986 the applicants appealed against the judgment to the Svea Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt) which asked the parties to file written submissions.   11.    Having obtained, by 8 February 1988, the necessary written submissions from the parties, the Court of Appeal pronounced judgment in the case on 9 September 1990.   The Court upheld the judgment of the District Court.   12.    On 5 October 1990 the applicants asked for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen). However, on 6 November 1990 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.                                       II   13.    In 1983 a dispute arose between the applicants and certain other former employees and proceedings commenced in the District Court of Mora on 16 March 1983.   Before the District Court each party claimed damages from the other owing to alleged irregularities in a labour contract.   On 15 December 1983 the District Court pronounced judgment by default against the applicants as they had failed to appear in court when summoned to do so.   On 27 December 1983 the applicants asked for the proceedings to be resumed and on 8 November 1985 the parties were called to attend an oral preparatory session on 5 December 1985.   Following this session the parties submitted written observations to the District Court on 16 January and 7 February 1986 respectively. In March 1987 the parties were called to attend the main hearing which took place on 1 and 2 June 1987.   After hearing the parties' arguments and after an evaluation of the information and documents submitted, the District Court found against the applicants, who were ordered to pay a total of approximately 30,000 Swedish crowns plus interest to the former employees.   14.    On 8 July 1987 the applicants appealed against the judgment to the Labour Court which, after obtaining written observations from the parties, held a hearing in the case on 27 September 1988.   In its judgment of 2 November 1988 the Labour Court upheld the judgment of the District Court.   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.     Complaint declared admissible   15.    The Commission has declared admissible the applicants' complaints that their cases were not heard within a reasonable time.   B.     Point at issue   16.    The only point at issue is whether the length of the proceedings complained of exceeded the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   C.     The violation of the Convention   17.    Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention includes the following provision:         "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...,       everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by       (a) ... tribunal ..."   18.    The proceedings in question concerned labour disputes between the applicants and certain of their former employees. The purpose of the proceedings was to obtain a decision in a dispute over "civil rights and obligations" and they accordingly fall within the scope of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   19.    As far as the periods to be taken into consideration are concerned, the Commission notes that the proceedings set out in paras. 7-12 above commenced on 18 February 1983, when the applicants instituted proceedings in the District Court of Mora, and ended with the decision of the Supreme Court on 6 November 1990. Thus these proceedings lasted approximately 7 years and 8 1/2 months. As regards the proceedings set out in paras 13-14 above, the proceedings in the District Court of Mora commenced on 16 March 1983 and ended with the judgment of the Labour Court of 2 November 1988. These proceedings accordingly lasted approximately 5 years and 7 1/2 months.   20.    The Commission recalls that the reasonableness of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and with the help of the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties and the conduct of the authorities dealing with the case (see Eur. Court H.R., Vernillo judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, para. 30).   21.    According to the Government, the length of the periods in question was due in particular to the applicants' conduct.   22.    The Commission finds that the cases were not complex. Furthermore, it considers that the applicants' conduct is not in itself sufficient to explain the length of the proceedings.   As regards the first set of proceedings the Commission notes the existence of periods of inactivity imputable to the State between 11 January 1984 and 8 November 1985 and between 8 February 1988 and 9 September 1990. As regards the second set of proceedings the Commission notes the existence of such periods between 27 December 1983 and 8 November 1985 and between 7 February 1986 until March 1987. It considers that no convincing explanation of these delays has been advanced by the respondent Government.   23.    The Commission reaffirms that it is for Contracting States to organise their legal systems in such a way that their courts can guarantee the right of everyone to obtain a final decision on disputes relating to civil rights and obligations within a reasonable time (see i.a. Eur. Court H.R., Vocaturo judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 206C, p. 32, para. 17).   24.    In the light of the criteria established by case-law and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Commission considers that the length of the proceedings complained of was excessive and failed to satisfy the "reasonable time" condition.         CONCLUSION   25.    The Commission concludes that in this case there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.          Secretary to the                                 President of the     Second Chamber                                   Second Chamber             K. ROGGE                                         S. TRECHSEL