CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 10 septembre 1997

.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. 29105/95                       by Wilhelm LÄNDSTRÖM                       against Sweden           The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 10 September 1997, the following members being present:              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE, President            MM.    J.-C. GEUS                  A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS                  F. MARTINEZ                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  P. LORENZEN                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA                  A. ARABADJIEV              Ms.    M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the 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 4 July 1995 by Wilhelm Ländström against Sweden and registered on 8 November 1995 under file No. 29105/95;         Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 19 December 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 18 March 1997;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1919 and residing in Landvetter.   Before the Commission he is represented by Mr Arne Bodén, Farsta.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.   a.     The particular circumstances of the case         The applicant owns a dog, a male German Shepherd.   In May and June 1994, some neighbours of the applicant reported to the police authority in Göteborg that they had been attacked by the dog.   However, on 14 September 1994 the police authority decided not to pursue the matter as a lack of supervision of the dog could not be established.         Later, a neighbour reported another attack of the dog to the police.   Apparently, on 23 September 1994 the neighbour's six year old son had been collecting mail from the mailbox some 50 metres from the neighbour's house when the dog had rushed towards the boy and had jumped at him so that he fell to the ground.   Another neighbour had come to rescue the boy and the dog had attacked both the boy and that neighbour.         Following an investigation of the matter, the police authority decided, on 30 September 1994, to take the dog under its control and the same day the dog was taken from the applicant's home.   The dog was examined by a veterinary who recommended a mental test.   Such a test was performed the same day by an expert who recommended that the dog be destroyed immediately as it was very nervous and aggressive.   The dog was inclined to behave aggressively in any tight situation and therefore could be very dangerous.   At the applicant's request, a new test was performed by two instructors from the police dog squad.   They recommended the dog to be destroyed immediately as it showed unusual reactions of fear and very strong nervous reactions.   It also showed an aggressive behaviour, which indicated that it could be dangerous in tight situations.         By decision of 17 October 1994, the police authority ordered the dog to be destroyed in accordance with Section 3, subsection 2 of the Act on the Supervision of Dogs and Cats (Lag om tillsyn över hundar och katter, 1943:459).         The applicant appealed to the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen) of the County of Göteborg and Bohus.   On 17 November 1994 the Board rejected the appeal.   It noted that, although the attacked persons had not been seriously injured, the applicant's dog had shown a tendency to bite people.   The tests performed showed that the dog was nervous and that it could be dangerous in tight situations.   In striking a balance between the applicant's interest in keeping the dog and the neighbours' interest in having a safe neighbourhood, the Board, having regard, inter alia, to the dog's mental status, found that the dog should be destroyed.         The applicant appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) in Göteborg and requested that an oral hearing be held. He contested the accusations made by the neighbours and claimed that they were lying about what had happened on the different occasions and that the dog had not bitten anyone.       By letter of 5 December 1994, the appellate court informed the applicant that it would not hold an oral hearing, as it was deemed unnecessary.   The applicant was given an opportunity to complete his appeal in writing before 14 December.         On 27 December 1994, the appellate court formally decided not to hold an oral hearing and further rejected the appeal.   It agreed with the conclusions made by the County Administrative Board.         The applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten), maintaining his previous arguments and submissions. On 20 February 1995 the court refused the applicant leave to appeal.         By decision of 10 March 1995, the police authority allowed the applicant to take the dog home for two weeks to have it examined by a psychologist.   The applicant never returned the dog and it has since been kept in hiding.         On 15 May 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the applicant's request that the case be reopened.         The applicant also reported the proceedings to the Parliamentary Ombudsman (Justitieombudsmannen).   By decisions of 2 June and 19 July 1995, the Ombudsman found no reason to take any action in the matter.         On 2 August 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the applicant's further request for a reopening of the case.   b.     Relevant domestic law         Sections 2 and 3 of the Act on the Supervision of Dogs and Cats provide, in relevant parts, as follows:   (Translation)         Section 2:         "Dogs which have shown a tendency to bite people or       domestic animals are not allowed outdoors unleashed unless       they are kept within grounds which have been adequately       fenced and to which unauthorised persons do not have       access. ..."         Section 3:         "If there is a lack of supervision of the dog, the police       authority may decide on measures required by the       circumstances, such as requiring that the dog wear a muzzle       or be chained or fenced in. ...         In respect of a dog referred to in Section 2, the police       authority may decide that the dog shall be placed under its       control.   After the dog has been placed under such control,       the owner may have no access to the dog without the       permission of the authority.   The authority shall, after an       evaluation of the dog, have the dog sold or destroyed or       take care of the dog temporarily. ..."   COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains that he did not have an oral hearing in the Administrative Court of Appeal.   He invokes Article 6 of the Convention.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 4 July 1995 and registered on 8 November 1995.         On 16 October 1996 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite them to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.         The Government's observations were submitted on 19 December 1996. The applicant replied on 18 March 1997, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose.     THE LAW         The applicant complains that he did not have an oral hearing in the Administrative Court of Appeal.   He states that he wished to examine witnesses before the court.   He invokes Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:         "1.   In the determination of his civil rights and       obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public       hearing by [a] ... tribunal ..."         In agreement with the parties, the Commission finds that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention applies to the dispute in the present case.         The respondent Government submit that the applicant did not express his wish to examine witnesses to the Administrative Court of Appeal.   Nevertheless, that court acted as the first and only judicial organ in the case as the applicant was refused leave to appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court.   Furthermore, the appellate court reviewed the case in its entirety.   However, it did not hold an oral hearing.   The Government therefore admit that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention as the applicant did not receive a public hearing in the proceedings in question.   Accordingly, the application should be declared admissible.         The applicant states, in view of the Government's submissions, that there is no need for him to submit further observations in the case.         The Commission considers, in the light of the parties' submissions, that the case raises complex issues of law and of fact under the Convention, the determination of which should depend on an examination of the merits of the application.   The Commission concludes, therefore, that the application is not manifestly   ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   No other grounds for declaring it inadmissible have been established.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the       merits of the case.           M.-T. SCHOEPFER                            G.H. THUNE          Secretary                                President    to the Second Chamber                    of the Second Chamber