CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 1 juillet 1998

.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. 27522/95                       by Reinhard HELMERS                       against Sweden           The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 1 July 1998, the following members being present:              MM     J.-C. GEUS, President                  M.A. NOWICKI                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  J.-C. SOYER            Mrs    G.H. THUNE            MM     F. MARTINEZ                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  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 15 September 1994 by Reinhard HELMERS against Sweden and registered on 6 June 1995 under file No. 27522/95;         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 five applications before the Commission which may be described as relating to alleged discrimination against the applicant in the course of his professional career and alleged denial of access to court. His first application No. 8637/79 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 as being partly substantially the same as the applicant's first application, 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 have 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 HR, 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" (inkomsttrygg- hetsavtal). 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 invoked, inter alia, 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 that the Commission was satisfied that the applicant could have brought his dispute before the courts in accordance with the proceedings in labour disputes.         In his fifth application (No. 20165/92) the applicant referred to the facts as presented in his application No. 15557/89, submitting additional facts which were 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." The       applicant complained as in his previous application       No. 15557/89, that the determination of his claims       concerned a "civil right" within the meaning of Article 6       para. 1 of the Convention but that he had no "tribunal" to       which he   could turn. He referred in this respect to the       fact that his case against the Government was dismissed by       the courts.         He also invoked 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."         On 2 December 1992 the Commission (Second Chamber) declared the application inadmissible on the following grounds:         "1.   Under Article 6 para. 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) 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 of the       Convention does not give the applicant a right as such to       institute proceedings against 'the Government'. Nothing in       Article 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) 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 of the Convention."      In       his present application the applicant has submitted       numerous letters in which he once more refers to all his       previous applications lodged with the Commission and       complains, inter alia, that "as part of a long-lasting       discrimination by the Swedish authorities, based on       libellously attributed opinions of the applicant, the       Government 22 December 1988 had denied him even his       contractual salary to which he was entitled since 1974". He       also maintains that his cases have been examined wrongly       due to fraudulent behaviour by a member of the Commission       and its Secretariat.         The applicant has submitted additional facts which may be summarised as follows:         It appears that in 1993 the applicant submitted a request to the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) to have the case concerning the income guarantee contract reopened. On 12 September 1996 the Supreme Court rejected the request finding that the applicant had not submitted anything which could lead to the reopening of the case.     COMPLAINTS   1.     With reference to Articles 1, 6 and 14 of the Convention the applicant complains of continuing discrimination and denial of access to court as described in his previous applications.   2.     The applicant also complains that his request to have the proceedings in the Labour Court concerning the income guarantee contract reopened was not determined within a reasonable time.     THE LAW   1.     With reference to Articles 1, 6 and 14 (Art. 1, 6, 14) of the Convention the applicant complains of continuing discrimination and denial of access to court as described in his previous applications.         The Commission notes that in the letters submitted by the applicant in this respect he has made a series of allegations of criminal and dishonest conduct in language which is both insulting and abusive against a member of the Commission and its Secretariat. There is no evidence whatever to support the allegations made and nothing to warrant the language used, which in the Commission's view is wholly without justification. In this connection the Commission recalls that the persistent use of insulting or provocative language by an applicant may be considered an abuse of the right of petition (No. 2724/66, Dec. 10.2.67, Collection 22, p. 89; No. 2625/65, Dec. 30.9.68, Collection 28, p. 26 and No. 27567/95, Dec. 9.4.97, unpublished).         Nevertheless, in the present case the Commission finds it unnecessary to reject the application as abusive since it is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons:         In so far the applicant refers to his previous applications and the alleged discrimination and denial of access to court the Commission finds that the material submitted by the applicant in support of his present case does not contain any 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 applicant complains also that his request to have a previous Labour Court case reopened was not determined within a reasonable time. He invokes in this respect Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.         The Commission recalls, however, that Article 6 (Art. 6) is not applicable to proceedings concerning an application to reopen civil proceedings (cf. e.g. Nos 13601/88 and 13602/88, Dec. 6.7.89, D.R. 62, p. 284).         It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.        M.-T. SCHOEPFER                               J.-C. GEUS       Secretary                                   President to the Second Chamber                       of the Second Chamber