CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 10 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 }                    EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                      Application No. 14220/88                           Göran RAVNSBORG                               against                               SWEDEN                      REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                    (adopted on 10 December 1992)   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                             page   I.         INTRODUCTION           (paras. 1 - 13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1             A.    The application                (paras. 2 - 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1             B.    The proceedings                (paras. 5 - 8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1             C.    The present Report                (paras. 9 - 13). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2   II.        ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS           (paras. 14 - 38). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3             A.    The particular circumstances of the case                (paras. 14 - 26) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3             B.    Relevant domestic law                (paras. 27 - 38) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7   III.       OPINION OF THE COMMISSION           (paras. 39 - 64). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15             A.    Complaint declared admissible                (para. 39) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15             B.    Point at issue                (para. 40) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15             C.    Article 6 of the Convention                (paras. 41 - 64) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15   Dissenting opinion of MM. S. Trechsel, E. Busuttil, A.S. Gözübüyük, A. Weitzel, J.-C. Soyer, Mrs. J. Liddy and Mr. L. Loucaides. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20   APPENDIX I      : HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . 21   APPENDIX II     : PARTIAL DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY. . . 22   APPENDIX III    : FINAL DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY. . . . 27   I.    INTRODUCTION   1.    The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.    The application   2.    The applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1933. He is a university lecturer and resides at Lund.   3.    The application is directed against Sweden. The respondent Government were represented by their Agents, first Mr. Håkan Berglin, succeeded by Ms. Eva Jagander, both of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.   4.    The case concerns court proceedings in which the applicant was ordered by a court to pay a total of 3,000 Swedish crowns for "offences against the order in court" (rättegångsförseelser) without an oral hearing or otherwise having had an opportunity to address the court on the issue. The applicant considers that this procedure violates the rights guaranteed to him under Article 6 of the Convention.   B.    The proceedings   5.    The application was introduced on 2 July 1988 and registered on 16 September 1988. On 10 October 1990 the Commission decided to declare certain issues under Article 6 of the Convention inadmissible. It was furthermore decided in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure to give notice of the remainder of the application to the respondent Government and to invite them to present, before 21 December 1990, their observations in writing on the admissibility and merits.   6.    The Government submitted their observations on 20 December 1990. The applicant's written observations in reply were submitted on 27 April, 2 May and 15 June 1991.   7.    On 9 January 1992 the Commission decided to declare the issue under Article 6 referred to above (para. 4) admissible whereas the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. The parties were then provided with the opportunity to submit any additional observations on the merits which they wished to make. No further observations on the merits were received from the parties.   8.    After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case. Active consultations with the parties took place between 20 January 1992 and 28 February 1992. In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis upon which such a settlement can be effected.   C.    The present Report   9.    The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:              MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President                J. A. FROWEIN                S. TRECHSEL                E. BUSUTTIL                G. JÖRUNDSSON                A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                A. WEITZEL                J.-C. SOYER                H. G. SCHERMERS           Mrs. G. H. THUNE           Sir   Basil HALL           MM.   F. MARTINEZ RUIZ                C. L. ROZAKIS           Mrs. J. LIDDY           MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                J.-C. GEUS                M. P. PELLONPÄÄ                B. MARXER   10.   The text of this Report was adopted on 10 December 1992 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   11.   The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:   i)    to establish the facts, and   ii)   to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a      breach by the State concerned of its obligations under the      Convention.   12.   A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decisions on the admissibility of the application as Appendix II and Appendix III.   13.   The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.    The particular circumstances of the case   14.   The applicant was personal general proxy for his adoptive mother K, who died on 7 July 1987. On 19 November 1982 he was appointed administrator (god man) for his mother's friend M, who died on 10 February 1985. Both K and M were unable to care for themselves due to old age and were therefore eventually placed in a nursing home by the Municipality of Gothenburg. Some time after their respective admittance to the nursing home K and M became liable to pay a certain medical care fee calculated on the basis of their net income and they received invoices from the nursing home. The applicant duly paid the invoices on behalf of K and M.   15.   The applicant subsequently realised that the nursing home was a charitable foundation and he considered that he had paid the medical care fees on behalf of K and M to the wrong creditor. In May 1983 he accordingly stopped paying the fees. A dispute arose concerning the payment of these fees and court proceedings to this effect were instituted.   16.   While these proceedings were pending the Gothenburg Guardian Board (Göteborgs Överförmyndarnämnd), on 6 April 1987, requested the Gothenburg District Court (tingsrätten) to appoint an administrator (god man) for K. The applicant, as personal general proxy for K as well as on his own behalf, counterclaimed seeking the immediate dismissal of all members of the Gothenburg Guardian Board. In his 19-page submission of 4 May 1987 to the District Court the applicant stated inter alia:   (Swedish)        "Som allmänt omdöme beträffande Överförmyndarnämndens här      på goda grunder skarpt kritiserade agerande måste      framhållas, att nämnden här framstår som en korg      kommunalpolitiska rötägg av olika kulörer men av en      gemensam art och överideologi, nämligen den fascistoida      maktutövningens, därvid den enskilda kommunmedlemmens      rättigheter och välförstådda intressen - om dessas existens      överhuvud taget medgives i maktberusningens ögonblick -      aldrig får innebära något mera verkningsfullt      ifrågasättande av kollektivets krav eller det      politrukstyrda intressesubjektets absoluta rätt, sådan      denne i varje enskilt fall till sitt innehåll bestämts av      de i s.k. demokratisk ordning utmanglade representativa      folkdomstolarna (vars mera officiella benämning är      Göteborgs kommuns styrelser och nämnder) med sin bemanning      av i häpnadsväckande hög grad lokalt publikt slödder eller      - som ovan - rena rötägg.      Kravet på offentlig, muntlig (huvud) förhandling i detta      dubbelärende dels om ansökan om förordnande av god man,      dels om omedelbart entledigande av vissa befattningshavare      och ledamöter av Göteborgs Överförmyndarnämnd stödes      ytterst på europakonventionens artikel 6(1)."   (translation)        "As a general assessment about the Guardian Board's      actions, which are strongly criticised on good grounds, the      Board can be described as a basket of municipal political      rotten eggs of different colours but of a common      denominator and supra ideology, i.e. the tendentiously      fascist exercise of power, in connection with which the      rights and legitimate interests of individual municipal      members - 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 subject, such as      it is in each individual case defined as to its contents by      the so-called democratically representative People's Courts      (whose official names are the Boards or Councils of the      Municipality of Gothenburg) with their manning, to a      surprisingly high degree, by the local public mob or - as      above - pure rotten eggs.      The request for a public, oral (main) hearing in this      double case, concerning on the one hand the request for the      appointment of an administrator and on the other the      immediate dismissal of certain care workers and members of      the Gothenburg Guardian Board, is furthermore based on      Article 6 para. 1 of the European Convention."   17.   On 18 May 1987 the District Court considered the request for the appointment of an administrator and in particular the applicant's above submission to this effect. In application of the Code of Judicial Procedure (rättegångsbalken), the Court ordered the applicant to pay 1,000 Swedish crowns for an "offence against the order in court" (rättegångsförseelse) in respect of the above statement which it considered to be improper (otillbörligt uttalande i rättegångsskrift). The Court did not hold any hearing in regard to this issue. The case was, as regards the merits, adjourned.   18.   On 1 June 1987 the applicant appealed against the District Court's above decision, ordering him to pay 1,000 Swedish crowns, to the Court of Appeal (hovrätten) for Western Sweden. In his 14-page appeal he complained inter alia that he had been fined without having had the possibility of defending himself at an oral hearing. He furthermore requested an oral hearing in the Court of Appeal. In the written appeal the applicant stated inter alia as follows:   (Swedish)        "Skulle hovrätten i något hänseende döma med avvikelse från      av mig här framställda yrkanden, kommer jag givetvis att      överklaga, för att sedan högst sannolikt omedelbart kunna      insända anmälan till europakommissionen resp kommittén för      de mänskliga rättigheterna i Genève. Risken är nämligen      ytterst liten för att en allmänt letargisk och genom sina      ledamöters mångåriga kanslihusindoktrinering mot mänskliga      rättigheter slappt allergisk slutinstans beviljar      prövningstillstånd i ett fall som detta."   (translation)        "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 or to the Human      Rights Committee in Geneva. 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."   19.   The Court of Appeal decided on the appeal on 4 November 1987, prior to which K had died on 7 July 1987. It found that the District Court had acted in accordance with domestic case-law and legal doctrine when ordering the applicant to pay 1,000 Swedish crowns for the "offence against the order in court" and therefore rejected the appeal. The Court of Appeal furthermore saw no reason to hold an oral hearing. Finally, the Court found the applicant's remarks in his written appeal of 1 June 1987 improper and ordered him to pay another 1,000 Swedish crowns for an "offence against the order in court".   20.   On 26 November 1987 the applicant applied to the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) for leave to appeal. He maintained inter alia that the courts' actions and decisions had not only deprived him of his right to a fair trial, being an accused, but also infringed his right to freedom of expression.   21.   On 5 January 1988 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.   22.   In the meantime the proceedings instituted on 6 April 1987 (see paras. 16 and 17 above) had continued in the District Court. On 17 June 1987 the District Court considered the Guardian Board's request for the appointment of an administrator as well as the applicant's and K's request for the Board members' dismissal. It did not hold a hearing but found in favour of the applicant and K as regards the appointment of an administrator and accordingly rejected the Board's request for such appointment. The Court furthermore rejected the applicant's and K's request for the dismissal of the Board members as the submissions in support of the request did not disclose any reason to do so.   23.   On 2 July 1987 the applicant appealed, on behalf of K as well as on his own behalf, against the District Court's above decision on the merits to the Court of Appeal for Western Sweden. In his 7-page written appeal he requested that the case be referred back to the District Court for renewed consideration, including an oral hearing. He stated inter alia:   (Swedish)        "Det faktum, att vi av flera utomordentliga skäl yrkar, att      ärendet Göteborgs tingsrätt, avd 1, Fm 384/87 återförvisas      för fortsatt handläggning i tingsrätten innebär givetvis      icke att vi ens för ett ögonblick skulle acceptera, att      målet vid fortsatt handläggning på tingsrättsnivå ännu en      gång skulle domineras av t.ex. chefsrådmannens Sven      Wieselgren långtgående fascistoida processledning med dess      definitoriska inslag av grovt partiska kommunalhänsyn,           kollegialitetskorruption, myndighetsmissbruk           genom egenmäktighet, skuggrädsla och           mörkmannaprinciper. Överhuvud taget är våra           erfarenheter av den allmänt egenmäktiga och till           kommunens favör djupt partiska normexercisen vid           tingsrätten, sådan den utövas av en Stefan           Wikmark, en Sven Ordqvist, en Kenneth Ström           eller en Sven Wieselgren - samtliga ledamöter av           tingsrättens domarkollegium - sådan, att vi           särskilt med hänsyn till detta kollegiums skarpt           framträdande partiskhet kommer att - vad avser           rättens ordförande vid fortsatt handläggning av           ärendet Fm 384/87 - yrka på konstitution av           särskild tingsrätt för sagda handläggning,           varvid rättens ordförande in casu skall sökas           utanför Göteborgs tingsrätt."   (translation)        "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, Chief      Judge Sven Wieselgren's far-reaching tendentiously fascist      way of presiding over the court with its gross partiality      in favour of municipal interests, collegiate corruption,      and abuse of public authority through autocracy, shadow      fear and dark man principles. Our experience with 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."   24.   On 4 November 1987 the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal. It found that it could not deal with the applicant's and K's appeal in so far as the District Court had found in their favour by not granting the Guardian Board's request for the appointment of an administrator. Furthermore, the Court found that it could not deal with the remainder of the appeal as a right to appeal was only granted to a person who had actually been dismissed as requested by the applicant and K. Finally, the Court ordered the applicant to pay once more 1,000 Swedish crowns for an "offence against the order in court" finding his remarks in his written appeal of 2 July 1987 improper.   25.   On 30 November 1987 the applicant applied, on behalf of K's estate as well as on his own behalf, for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. He maintained inter alia his request for the dismissal of the Guardian Board's members and requested that the case be referred back to the District Court for proper examination, including an oral hearing. He also requested the Supreme Court to repeal the order to pay 1,000 Swedish crowns for the "offence against the order in court".   26.   On 5 January 1988 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.   B.    Relevant domestic law   "Offences against the order in court" (rättegångsförseelser)   27.   Chapter 9, Section 5, of the Code of Judicial Procedure sanctions as an "offence against the order in court" (rättegångsförseelse) certain forms of improper behaviour either at a court hearing or in written submissions to a court. The provision read 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."   (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."   28.   According to Chapter 5, Section 9, of the Code, which concerns order at court hearings, the presiding judge may, for instance, order a person, who disturbs the hearing or behaves in an unseemly manner in some other way, to leave the courtroom.   29.   According to the travaux préparatoires of Chapter 9, Section 5, of the Code of Judicial Procedure (NJA II 1943, page 91), improper behaviour of a more serious character could be considered as criminal according to relevant rules of penal law, such as provisions on defamation.   The present provision is, however, to be applied in cases where there is an offence with regard to order in the court.   The penalty is limited to the payment of a specified sum of money which, at the relevant time, could not exceed 1,000 Swedish crowns.   30.   Abusive statements may be punishable as defamation according to Chapter 5 of the Penal Code. Such cases presuppose prosecution. According to Chapter 20, Section 1, of the Code of Judicial Procedure, this is, however, not the case with "offences against the order in court". In such a case the court may immediately order the person who commits an "offence against the order in court" to pay a sum of money as indicated above (see para. 29).   31.   Chapter 9, Section 5, of the Code of Judicial Procedure is applicable to anyone who takes part in court proceedings, the only exception being the members of the court itself, i.e. judges and lay members of the court. The provision is therefore applicable to the parties to a case, their representatives, witnesses etc. It is also applicable to members of the audience at a court hearing.   32.   The question of whether a person has committed an "offence against the order in court" is dealt with by the court of its own accord, cf. Chapter 19, Section 5 of the Code of Judicial Procedure. The matter can only be dealt with in the particular proceedings in which the improper behaviour has taken place and by that particular court. A sanction for an "offence against the order in court" does not presuppose prosecution and it is not entered in the criminal register (allmänna kriminalregistret).   Public, oral hearings   33.   The question of "offences against the order in court" was, in the present case, dealt with in accordance with the Act (1946:807) on the Handling of Court Matters (lag om handläggning av domstolsärenden), hereafter called the 1946 Act. According to the 1946 Act, Section 4, sub-section 2, the court may conduct a hearing if it considers that the applicant or someone else, who is involved in the matter, should be heard orally.   34.   According to the travaux préparatoires to the 1946 Act, the purpose of the provisions of the Act is to adapt the proceedings to the nature of the matter. If an oral hearing is not necessary with regard to the particular matter at issue, such a hearing shall not take place. If, on the other hand, the court decides to hold a hearing, the same provisions as those applying to main hearings in civil cases shall apply in principle (Section 5, sub-section 2, of the 1946 Act).   35.   Section 11 of the 1946 Act further provides that, in matters not dealt with in that Act, the provisions concerning civil cases in the Code of Judicial Procedure shall apply, insofar as they are relevant. On this basis too, it would have been possible for the Gothenburg District Court to decide to hold a hearing in order to resolve the question of the "offence against the order in court" in the present case.   36.   According to the Code of Judicial Procedure, Chapter 52, Section 10, sub-section 1, the court shall make suitable arrangements for an oral hearing if it is necessary for the examination of the case to hear a party or someone else. Consequently, it would also have been possible for the Court of Appeal to hold an oral hearing.   Representation in litigation   37.   Chapter 12 of the Code of Judicial Procedure regulates the question of representation in litigation. The relevant Sections read as follows:   (Swedish)        "1§: Parts talan må föras genom ombud.        Om skyldighet för part att infinna sig personligen stadgas i      11 kap. 5 §.        2§: Såsom ombud må ej brukas annan än den som rätten med      hänsyn till redbarhet, insikter och tidigare verksamhet      finner lämplig att vara ombud i målet.        Ombud skall vara svensk medborgare med hemvist inom riket;      dock må även annan brukas såsom ombud, om rätten med hänsyn      till målets beskaffenhet och övriga omständigheter finner      det lämpligen kunna ske.        Ej må den vara ombud, som är underårig eller i konkurstill-      stånd eller som har förvaltare enligt 11 kap. 7 § föräldra-      balken.        3§: Lagfaren domare i eller rättsbildad befattningshavare      vid allmän domstol eller allmän åklagare eller kronofogde      må ej vara ombud, med mindre regeringen eller myndighet som      regeringen bestämmer giver lov därtill. ...        Ej må nämndeman vid den domstol han tillhör föra annans      talan.        ...        5§: Visar ombud oredlighet, oskicklighet eller oförstånd      eller finnes han eljest olämplig, skall rätten avvisa honom      som ombud i målet; rätten äge ock, om skäl äro därtill,      förklara honom obehörig antingen för viss tid eller tills      vidare att brukas som ombud vid den rätten."   (translation)        "Section 1: The parties may present their cases through a      representative.        The duty of a party to appear in person is prescribed in      Chapter 11, Section 5.        Section 2: Only a person deemed suitable by the court to be      a representative in the case with regard to his honesty,      knowledge and earlier activities may appear as a      representative.        A representative shall be a Swedish citizen residing in the      realm; however, the court may permit a person who does not      meet these qualifications to serve as representative if,      with regard to the nature of the case and other      circumstances, such permission is found appropriate.        A minor, or a person in the state of bankruptcy or put      under guardianship in accordance with Chapter 11, Section 7      of the Family Code, may not appear as a representative.        Section 3: Professional judges and officers learned in law      sitting in the general courts, public prosecutors and      bailiffs may not appear as representatives unless the      Government or an authority determined by the Government      grants an exception for a particular case. ...        No lay judge may appear as representative in the court of      which he is a member.        ...        Section 5: When a representative is shown to be dishonest,      lacking in skill, or imprudent, or is otherwise deemed      unsuitable, the court shall dismiss him as representative      in the case; for cause, the court may also declare him to      be incompetent to act as a representative before it, either      for a certain period or until further notice."   Recovery and conversion of fines   38.   Chapter 9 of the Code of Judicial Procedure does not contain any provisions according to which the sum of money a court has ordered a person to pay for an "offence against the order in court" may be converted into a term of imprisonment. Such matters are regulated in the 1979 Act on the Enforcement of Fines (bötesverkställighetslagen (1979:189)). The relevant Sections read as follows at the relevant time:   (Swedish)        "Allmänna bestämmelser        1§: Bötesstraff verkställs genom uppbörd eller indrivning.      Regeringen bestämmer, i vad mån uppbörd skall ske. ...        2§: Uppbörd av böter sker så snart dom, strafföreläggande      eller föreläggande av ordningsbot har meddelats. Indrivning      får däremot ej ske förrän domen har vunnit laga kraft eller      föreläggandet har godkänts. ...        ...        Uppbörd        4§: Uppbörd sker genom att den bötfällde frivilligt      erlägger betalning till myndighet som regeringen bestämmer.        ...        Indrivning        6§: Skall uppbörd ej ske eller har uppbörd ej lett till      full betalning, skall böterna drivas in genom kronofogde-      myndighetens försorg. Indrivningen sker på grund av dom,      godkänt föreläggande eller saköreslängd.        ...        9§: I den mån betalning inte kan erhållas ... sker      indrivning genom utmätning eller införsel enligt vad som är      särskilt föreskrivet.        10§: För att driva in bötesfordran får kronofogdemyndig-      heten ansöka att den bötfällde skall försättas i konkurs.      Understiger fordringen femhundra kronor, får ansökan dock      göras endast om synnerliga skäl föreligger. ...        ...        Indrivningshinder        11§: Har böterna bortfallit eller föreligger eljest laga      hinder mot verkställighet, avkortas böterna.        Möter annat hinder mot indrivning av böterna, får de      avskrivas. Avskrivning medför ej ändring i      betalningsskyldigheten.        Fråga om avkortning och avskrivning prövas av      skattemyndigheten enligt de närmare föreskrifter som      regeringen meddelar.        12§: Skulle indrivning av böter vara till synnerligt men      för den bötfällde eller någon som är beroende av honom för      sin försörjning, kan kronofogdemyndigheten förordna att      vidare verkställighet ej skall äga rum. Sådant förordnande      får ej meddelas, om det är påkallat från allmän synpunkt      att indrivningen fortgår.        ...        Förvandling av böter        15§: Ådömda böter, som inte har kunnat indrivas och som      inte har avkortats, skall på talan av åklagare förvandlas      till fängelse, om det är uppenbart att den börfällde av      tredska har underlåtit att betala böterna eller om      förvandling annars av särskilda skäl är påkallad från      allmän synpunkt.        Är den bötfällde, när förvandling skall ske, skyldig att      betala även andra böter än sådana som avses i första      stycket, skall också dessa böter förvandlas.        Förvandlingsstraffet skall bestämmas till fängelse i längst      fjorton dagar och högst tre månader.        16§: Mål om förvandling av böter tas upp av tingsrätten i      den ort där den bötfällde finns eller av den tingsrätt som      har handlagt det mål, i vilket bötesstraffet eller, om det      är fråga om flera sådana straff, något av dem har ådömts.        17§: I mål om bötesförvandling skall tingsrätten vid      avgörande av saken bestå av en lagfaran domare och      nämndemän. Åklagaren och den bötfällde skall kallas till      förhandling inför rätten. Om den bötfällde inte inställer      sig, får målet ändå avgöras, såvida tillfredsställande      utredning finns i saken.        Rättens avgörande av saken sker genom beslut.        Ett beslut varigenom rätten har lämnat en ansökan om      förvandling utan bifall utgör inte hinder för att en sådan      ansökan tas upp på nytt beträffande samma böter, om nya      förhållanden ger anledning till det.        I övrigt skall i tillämpliga delar gälla vad som är      föreskrivet beträffande mål om allmänt åtal.        ...        22§: Förvandling får ej ske av             1. böter, som har ådömts med stöd av 30 kap. 6 §           brottsbalken,             2. vite, som har utdömts för underlåtenhet att           fullgöra dom eller beslut rörande saken i mål som har           handlagts enligt lagen (1974:371) om rättegången i           arbetstvister.        Om hinder i andra fall mot förvandling av böter eller viten      finns särskilda bestämmelser. ..."   (translation)        "General provisions        Section 1: Fines are enforced by means of payment or      collection. The Government decides to what extent payment      must be made. ...        Section 2: Fines are to be paid as soon as a judgment, a      prosecutor's order for summary punishment or a police      officer's order for summary imposition of a fine for a      regulatory offence have been given. The fine may not,      however, be collected before the judgment has gained legal      force or the order has been accepted by the person      concerned.        ...        Payment        Section 4: Fines are paid when the person fined voluntarily      submits payment to the authority designated by the      Government.        ...        Collection        Section 6: If payment is not   accepted or if full payment      has not been made, the fine shall be collected by the      Enforcement Office. Collection is carried out on the basis      of judgments, accepted summary orders or the list of      outstanding fines.        ...        Section 9: If payment cannot be obtained ... the collection      of the fine is to be carried out through forced sale or      forced retention of income in accordance with what is      specially prescribed.        Section 10: The Enforcement Office may request that the      person concerned be declared bankrupt in order to obtain      payment of the fines due. However, in case of fines of less      than 500 crowns such a request may only be made if      supported by very strong reasons.        ...        Obstacles to enforcement        Section 11: If the fines have been annulled or if there are      otherwise legal obstacles to enforcement, the fines are      cancelled.        If there are otherwise obstacles to the collection of the      fines, the fines at issue may be removed from the      collection list. Such removal from the list does not change      the duty to pay the fines.        Section 12: If the collection of fines causes extreme      hardship for the person concerned or for someone who      depends on him for his living, the Enforcement Office may      order that no further execution shall take place. Such an      order may not be issued if it is necessary from a general      point of view to proceed with the collection.        ...        Conversion of fines        Section 15: Fines imposed which have not been collected and      which have not been cancelled may, upon request from the      prosecutor, be converted into imprisonment if it is obvious      that the person concerned has defiantly refused to pay them      or if there are otherwise special reasons from a general      point of view to convert them.        If the person concerned, at the time of the conversion, has      a duty to pay also other fines than those referred to in      the first subsection, these fines shall also be converted.        The converted sentence shall not be less than fourteen days      and not more than three months imprisonment.        Section 16: Cases relating to the conversion of fines are      to be dealt with by the District Court of the place where      the person concerned stays or by the District Court which      dealt with the case, or if there are several such cases,      with one of the cases in which the fines were imposed.        Section 17: When deciding in conversion cases the court      shall be composed of one professional judge and lay      assessors. The prosecutor and the defendant shall be      summoned to the hearing. If the defendant does not present      himself, the case may still be decided if sufficient      material is available.        The court's conclusion shall take the form of a decision.           A decision not to grant a request for the           conversion of a fine does not constitute an           obstacle to a new conversion request in respect           of the same fine if there are new circumstances           warranting renewed examination.        In other respects the provisions governing public      prosecution apply.        ...        Section 22: Conversion may not take place of             1. fines imposed in accordance with Chapter 30,           Section 6, of the Penal Code,             2. money penalties imposed because of refusal to obey           a judgment or a decision given in a case dealt with           under the 1974 Act on the Procedure in Labour           Disputes.        There are special regulations regarding obstacles to      conversion of fines and money penalties in other      cases. ..."   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.    Complaint declared admissible   39.   The complaint declared admissible concerns the obligation, imposed by the courts without an oral hearing, to pay a total of 3,000 Swedish crowns for "offences against the order in court" (rättegångsförseelser).   B.    Point at issue   40.   The issue to be determined is whether there has been a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.   C.    Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention   41.   Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention reads as follows:        "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.      Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and      public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the      interest of morals, public order or national security in a      democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the      protection of the private life of the parties so require,      or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the      court in special circumstances where publicity would      prejudice the interests of justice."   42.   It is in dispute between the parties whether this provision applies in the present case.   43.   The applicant maintains that, by having been ordered to pay fines, he was subjected to one of the two basic forms of punishment within the domestic penal laws. All fines constitute punishment and the administration of punishment must - without exception - fulfil the guarantees of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention. The applicant also submits that it follows from the Penal Code that improper behaviour within the meaning of the Code of Judicial Procedure Chapter 9, Section 5, is a criminal offence since the penal reaction is a fine. Therefore every question as to improper behaviour under the Code of Judicial Procedure