CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 5 mars 1990

.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 }                                 PARTIAL                           AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 14062/88                       by D.                       against Sweden             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 5 March 1990, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              Mr.   F. MARTINEZ              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              Mr.   L. LOUCAIDES                Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 18 February 1988 by D. against Sweden and registered on 26 July 1988 under file No. 14062/88;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.           The applicants are Swedish citizens, born in 1923 and 1918 respectively.   They are married and reside at Saltsjöbaden, Sweden.           The present application concerns five different sets of civil proceedings involving the applicants.                                  I           On 17 February 1983 the applicants instituted proceedings against two of their former employees in order to obtain damages allegedly incurred through the actions of the former employees.           On 15 December 1983 the District Court (tingsrätt) of Mora pronounced judgment by default (tredskodom) as the applicants failed to appear in court although they had been properly summoned.   On 9 January 1984 the applicants then asked for the proceedings to be resumed (ansökan om återvinning).           The case was accordingly examined again by the District Court of Mora on 31 October 1986 where the applicants claimed damages amounting to the symbolic sum of one Swedish crown.   After having heard 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.           The applicants appealed against the judgment to the Svea Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt) where, they submit, the case is pending at present (January 1990).                                     II           In 1980 the above-mentioned employees instituted proceedings against the applicants claiming damages for unfair dismissal and on 18 May 1982 the District Court of Mora pronounced judgment against the applicants and ordered them to pay damages to their former employees totalling approximately 38,000 Swedish crowns plus interest.           The applicants appealed against the judgment to the Labour Court (arbetsdomstolen) which upheld the judgment of the District Court on 16 February 1983.           Subsequently the applicants lodged an extraordinary appeal (besvär över domvilla) with the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) maintaining that errors had been committed in the judgments of the District Court and the Labour Court.   However, on 9 June 1983 the Supreme Court rejected the applicants' appeal.                                  III           In 1983 a dispute arose between the applicants and certain other former employees and it appears that proceedings commenced in the District Court of Mora on 28 April 1983 where 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 failed to appear in court when summoned to do so.   On 26 December 1983 the applicants then asked for the proceedings to be resumed.           The case was examined again by the District Court of Mora on 30 June 1987.   After having heard 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 approximately 30,000 Swedish crowns plus interest to the former employees.           The applicants appealed against the judgment to the Labour Court which upheld the judgment on 2 November 1988.                                  IV           In 1976 the first applicant instituted proceedings in the District Court of Mora against her mother claiming approximately 272,000 Swedish crowns in damages as her mother allegedly had not properly looked after the applicant's economic interests until she came of age.           Judgment was pronounced by the District Court on 26 February 1981 and, on appeal, by the Svea Court of Appeal on 8 June 1982.   By these judgments some of the applicant's claims were accepted whereas others were rejected.   She subsequently asked for leave to appeal but this was refused by the Supreme Court on 17 August 1983.                                    V           It appears that after the death of one of the first applicant's relatives the District Court of Mora was in charge of the estate of the deceased person.   On 3 November 1986, the first applicant complained to the Court that certain inventory lists registered by the Court on 19 September 1986 were incorrect.   However, the District Court dismissed the complaint on 6 November 1986 as it had been submitted out of time.           The applicant appealed against this decision to the Svea Court of Appeal which upheld the decision to dismiss the complaint on 15 December 1986.           Leave to appeal was refused by the Supreme Court on 21 August 1987.   COMPLAINTS           As regards part I the applicants complain that their civil case has not been determined within a reasonable time, in particular since it is still pending.   They refer to Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.           As regards part II the applicants complain of an incorrect interpretation of Swedish law.   They refer to Article 7 para. 1 of the Convention.           As regards part III the applicants complain that their civil case was not determined within a reasonable time.   They refer to Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.           As regards part IV the first applicant complains of an incorrect interpretation of Swedish law.   She refers to Article 7 para. 1 of the Convention.           Finally as regards part V the first applicant complains of the fact that her case was dismissed as being referred to the Court out of time.   She invokes in this respect Article 7 para. 1 of the Convention.   THE LAW   1.       As regards the facts of the application relating to part I the applicants have complained that their civil case before the Swedish courts has not been determined within a reasonable time.   They refer in this respect to Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention which secures to everyone in the determination of his civil rights and obligations the right to a hearing within a reasonable time.           The Commission notes that the proceedings commenced on 17 February 1983 and that they are still pending.   At present this is a total of approximately seven years.   The Commission considers that it is not sufficiently informed to decide on this complaint and finds it necessary to obtain from the parties observations on the admissibility and merits in this respect.   2.       As regards the facts of the application relating to part II the applicants complain of an incorrect interpretation of Swedish law in a civil case concerning unfair dismissal.           However, the Commission is not required to decide whether or not the facts alleged by the applicants disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention, as Article 26 (Art. 26) provides that the Commission "may only deal with the matter ... within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken".           In the present case the decision of the Labour Court, which was the final decision regarding the subject of this particular complaint, was given on 16 February 1983, whereas the application was submitted to the Commission on 18 February 1988, that is, more than six months after the date of this decision.   Furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have interrupted or suspended the running of that period.         It follows that this part of the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.   3.       As regards the facts of the application relating to part III the applicants have complained that their civil case before the Swedish courts was not determined within a reasonable time.   As above under part I they refer to Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.           The Commission notes that the proceedings commenced on 28 April 1983 and ended with the judgment of the Labour Court of 2 November 1988.   This is a total of approximately 51/2 years.   As under part I above the Commission considers that it is not sufficiently informed to decide on this complaint and finds it necessary to obtain from the parties observations on the admissibility and merits in this respect.   4.       As regards the facts of the application relating to part IV the first applicant complains of an incorrect interpretation of Swedish law in a civil case brought against her mother.           However, the Commission is again not required to decide whether or not the facts alleged by the applicant disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention, as under Article 26 (Art. 26) it "may only deal with the matter ... within a period of six months from    the date on which the final decision was taken".           In the present case the decision of the Supreme Court, which was the final decision regarding the subject of this particular complaint, was given on 17 August 1983, whereas the application was submitted to the Commission on 18 February 1988, that is, more than six months after the date of this decision.   Furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have interrupted or suspended the running of that period.           It follows that this part of the application has again been introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.   5.       Finally, as regards the facts of the application relating to part V the first applicant complains of the fact that her case was dismissed as being referred to the District Court out of time.           The Commission has considered this aspect of the application under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention insofar as this provision guarantees   to everyone a right of access to a court.   This does not, however,   debar Contracting States from making regulations governing the access    provided that such regulations are for the good administration of    justice.           The Commission has examined the applicant's complaint in view of the above and finds no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in 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:           1.   ADJOURNS the examination of the application as far as             it concerns the length of the proceedings as set out in             parts I and III;           2.   declares the remainder of the application (parts II, IV,             and V) INADMISSIBLE.     Secretary to the Commission                President of the Commission           (H.C. KRÜGER)                              (C.A. NØRGAARD)