CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 16 avril 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. 34777/97                       by Peter GEDIN                       against Sweden         The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 16 April 1998, the following members being present:              MM     J.-C. GEUS, President                  M.A. NOWICKI                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs    G.H. THUNE            MM     F. MARTINEZ                  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 14 November 1996 by Peter GEDIN against Sweden and registered on 5 February 1997 under file No. 34777/97;         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, a Swedish citizen, resides in Stockholm.   He is a lawyer.         The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.         On 22 August 1994, being the representative of B.H., the applicant brought a medical malpractice suit against the County Council of Malmöhus County (Malmöhus läns landsting) in the District Court (tingsrätten) of Lund. B.H. applied for legal aid and on 9 September 1994 the court appointed the applicant as her legal aid lawyer.         Following a preparatory hearing, the judge in charge of the case - in a letter of 12 April 1995 - questioned whether the applicant had the necessary qualifications to represent B.H. in the case. The judge stated that the District Court would decide whether the applicant would be allowed to continue as her representative and legal aid lawyer.         The applicant submitted his opinion on the matter. Moreover, he challenged the impartiality of the judge in question. By decision of 29 May 1995, the District Court, composed of its president as sole judge, rejected that challenge.         On 11 August 1995 the District Court, composed of the president and two other judges but not including the judge whose impartiality had been challenged, found that the applicant had demonstrated a clear lack of competence and judgment. Consequently, the court decided that he would no longer be allowed to represent B.H. in the case. Further, he was dismissed as legal aid lawyer. B.H. was given the opportunity to name another representative.         On 10 June 1996, upon the applicant's appeal, the Court of Appeal (hovrätten) of Skåne and Blekinge upheld the District Court's decision.         On 3 October 1996 the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) refused the applicant leave to appeal.     COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains of the decision not to allow him to continue serving as B.H.'s representative and legal aid lawyer which - so he alleges - effectively deprived him of the right to exercise his profession. He claims that the District Court and the Court of Appeal deciding on the issue were not impartial and that the issue was not examined within a reasonable time. He invokes Article 6 of the Convention.     THE LAW         The applicant complains that the decision to dismiss him as representative and legal aid lawyer was not taken by an impartial tribunal within a reasonable time. 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 ... hearing       within a reasonable time by an ... impartial tribunal ..."         First, the Commission has to decide whether Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) is applicable in the present case.         It is noted at the outset that the right to legal assistance in civil rights disputes which, in certain circumstances, may exist under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) (cf. Eur. Court HR, Airey v. Ireland judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, pp. 14-16, para. 26) is a right which pertains to the party to the proceedings and not to his or her legal representative.         The question remains whether the decisions of the District Court and the Court of Appeal involved a determination of the applicant's civil rights. The Commission recalls that, by the impugned decisions, the applicant was dismissed as representative and legal aid lawyer in the case brought by him on behalf of B.H. It is true that the decisions had certain indirect economic consequences for the applicant relating to his right to remuneration in that particular case. However, he was not deprived of a general right to appear before these or other courts, nor was he barred from exercising his profession as a lawyer. In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the decisions in question did not involve a determination of his civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.         It follows that the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         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