CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 2 décembre 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 }                            AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                          Application No. 20165/92                        by Reinhard HELMERS                        against Sweden           The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 2 December 1992, the following members being present:                MM.    S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS            Mrs.   G. H. THUNE            MM.    F. MARTINEZ                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                    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 7 September 1991 by Reinhard HELMERS against Sweden and registered on 17 June 1992 under file No. 20165/92;         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 German citizen, born in 1930. He is a university lecturer and resides at Lund, Sweden.         The applicant has previously brought four applications before the Commission. His first application No. 8673/79 was declared inadmissible on 10 March 1982 as being partly incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention and partly for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The second application No. 10484/83 was declared inadmissible on 2 July 1984 also as being partly incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention and partly for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.         In a partial decision on admissibility of 14 March 1986 the Commission declared the applicant's third application No. 11826/85 inadmissible in so far as it concerned complaints under Articles 9, 10, 13, 14, 17 and 25 of the Convention whereas it declared admissible, on 9 May 1989, the complaint that he did not get a "fair and public hearing" within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention as regards certain proceedings before the Swedish Court of Appeal (hovrätten). This issue was finally determined by the European Court of Human Rights (Eur. Court H.R., Helmers judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212 - A).         In his fourth application No. 15557/89 the applicant submitted that the Swedish Government and the applicant's trade union in 1975 signed a so-called "income guarantee contract" (inkomsttrygghetsavtal). According to this contract a person who for reasons of reorganisation was required to fulfil other functions would nevertheless receive the same salary as before the reorganisation.         As the applicant considered that this applied to him he submitted a claim to the Government for an increase of salary as from a certain date. The Government rejected this claim on 22 December 1988. The applicant complained to the Chancellor of Justice (justitiekanslern) who informed him that his claims concerned a labour dispute which should be determined in accordance with the Act on Procedures in Labour Disputes (lagen om rättegången i arbetstvister), i.e. in the District Court (tingsrätten) or in the Labour Court (arbetsdomstolen).         Before the Commission the applicant inter alia invoked Article 10 of the Convention maintaining that "the official statement of political opinions which he is suspected to hold as reason to degrade him from his academic post was an obvious discrimination in the sense of the Convention".         Furthermore the applicant invoked Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention maintaining that the Government's refusal to accept his pecuniary claim was an example of the continuing discrimination against him. He contended that the determination of his claims concerned a "civil right" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention whereas he had no "tribunal" to which he could turn.         In its decision on admissibility of 6 November 1989 the Commission declared the complaint under Article 10 of the Convention inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. The complaint under Article 6 was also rejected as being manifestly ill-founded in th Commission was satisfied that the applicant could have brought his dispute before the courts in accordance with the proceedings in labour disputes.         In his present application the applicant refers to the facts as presented in his application No. 15557/89, submitting additional facts which may be summarised as follows:         On 20 September 1989 he instituted proceedings against the Government (Regeringen) in the Labour Court challenging their interpretation and application of the "income guarantee contract" as set out in their decision of 22 December 1988. By decision of 29 January 1990 the Labour Court referred the case to the District Court being the right forum for this kind of dispute.         In the District Court a problem arose as to whether the case should be directed against "the Government" or whether it should be directed against "the State" being the employer (Statens Arbetsgivarverk), hereafter called the SAV. Eventually this issue was brought before the Labour Court which on 13 December 1990 decided as follows:   (translation)         "It appears in this case that Reinhard Helmers presents his       employer with certain claims referring to the so-called       income guarantee contract of 1975 concerning the public       sector. His claims before the District Court must be       considered as being directed against the State in its       capacity as employer.         The State is represented by the SAV in disputes which       concern the relationship between the State as employer and       the employee working for the State where the dispute should       be determined in accordance with the Act on Procedures in       Labour Disputes (1974:371). This appears from Section 9 of       the Ordinance (1976:1021) concerning national collective       agreements. The present case must be determined in       accordance with the Act on Procedures in Labour Disputes.         Reinhard Helmers has no legal basis upon which he may       demand that the State be represented in the dispute by an       authority other than the SAV or that the writ be issued       against the Government. His appeal is accordingly       rejected."         The applicant nevertheless continued to insist in the District Court that his claim be directed against "the Government" and not the SAV for which reason the Court struck off the case (målet avskrives) in so far as it concerned the SAV and dismissed it (avvisning) in so far as it was directed against "the Government". This decision was upheld by the Labour Court on 17 December 1991.     COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains, as in his previous application No. 15557/89, that the determination of his claims concerns a "civil right" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention but that he has no "tribunal" to which he could turn. He refers in this respect to the fact that his case against the Government was dismissed by the courts.         He also invokes Article 10 in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention complaining that the reasons for rejecting his claims under the income guarantee contract were "inspired by the same administration that had used the anonymous political libel in achieving the applicant's degradation by the Government's decision of 7 June 1974."   THE LAW   1.     Under Article 6 para 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention the applicant complains that, in the determination of his civil rights, i.e. the dispute regarding his entitlement to salary adjustments under the so- called income guarantee contract, he has no access to a tribunal.         The Commission recalls that this is substantially the same complaint as that submitted in the applicant's previous application No. 15557/89. Accordingly it follows from Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention that the Commission may only examine it if it contains relevant new information. In this respect the applicant refers to the fact that the District Court dismissed his case against the Government.         The Commission finds, however, that Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention does not give the applicant a right as such to institute proceedings against "the Government". Nothing in Article 6 (Art. 6) prevents a Government from delegating certain tasks, for example in labours matters, to its authorities. Furthermore, the Commission notes that the dispute involving the applicant's civil rights concerned his entitlement to certain salary adjustments. Such a dispute could be brought before the courts in accordance with the proceedings in labour disputes as already held by the Commission in its previous decision of 6 November 1989 in application No. 15557/89. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the present application contains no relevant new information.         It follows that this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention.   2.     The Commission has examined the remainder of the complaints as submitted by the applicant. It finds, however, that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention. 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.         For these reasons, the Commission unanimously         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.     Secretary to the Second Chamber        President of the Second Chamber           (K. ROGGE)                            (S. TRECHSEL)