Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)79[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Khurshid Mustafa and Tarzibachi against Sweden
(Application No. 23883/06, judgment of 16/12/2008, final on 16/03/2009)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);
Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;
Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the freedom to receive information of the applicants, who were evicted from their flat for refusing to remove a satellite dish (violation of Article 10) (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;
Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:
- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and
DECIDES to close the examination of this case.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)79
Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of
Khurshid Mustafa and Tarzibachi against Sweden
Introductory case summary
This case concerns the violation of the freedom to receive information of the applicants, Swedish nationals of Iraqi origin, parents of three children, who were evicted from their flat for refusing to remove a satellite dish (violation of Article 10).
The applicants refused to dismantle a satellite dish, relying on their constitutional right to receive information. Consequently the landlord (a real estate company), by a letter of 2/04/2004, gave them notice of termination of the tenancy agreement of the flat they had rented since 1999. Later in April 2004, the landlord initiated proceedings against the applicants and other tenants who had installed satellite dishes before the Rent Review Board in Stockholm.
By a final decision of 20/12/2005, the Svea Court of Appeal found that the applicants had disregarded their obligations as tenants under the tenancy agreement and chapter 12, section 25 of the Land Code to such a degree that the agreement should not be prolonged. Although the new satellite installation was safe, the landlord’s interest for order and good custom weighed more heavily than the applicants’ freedom to receive information. The outcome of the Court of Appeal decision was the applicant’s eviction from the flat in which they have lived for more than six years.
The European Court noted that at that moment there were no other means for the applicants to receive television programmes in Arabic and Farsi broadcast from their place of origin, Iraq. Moreover, the safety concerns expressed by the owner were examined by the domestic courts which concluded that the installation was safe. Furthermore, the Court noted that the applicant’s flat was located in one of the suburbs of Stockholm with no particular aesthetic aspirations.
The European Court stressed that the outcome of the Court of Appeal decision was the eviction of the applicants and their three children from their home, a decision that was a disproportionate measure and not necessary in a democratic society. The Court concluded that the respondent state failed in its positive obligation to protect the right of the applicants to receive information.
I.Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
6500 EUR
5000 EUR
10000 EUR
21500 EUR
Paid on 18/05/2009
b) Individual measures
Following the decision of the Svea Court of Appeal, the landlord offered the applicants the opportunity to stay in their flat if they agreed to remove the satellite dish, but they refused and moved from the flat on 1/06/2006 to another flat situated 110 km west of Stockholm. The European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.
II.General measures
The violation of Article 10 in this case stems from an isolated situation resulting from the interpretation of the Land Code by the Svea Court of Appeal. Further, it should be underlined that the Convention and the case‑law of the European Court enjoy direct effect in the Swedish legal order. The judgment in English and a summary in Swedish have been published on the Swedish National Courts Administration’s website () and on the government’s human rights website ().
A report containing the summary of the judgment in Swedish with a copy of the judgment attached has been sent to relevant domestic courts and authorities, including those directly involved in the case.
Moreover, following the judgment, the main actors in the Swedish tenancy market have also issued a standard clause for tenancy contracts according to which tenants should have the right to install a satellite dish for their flat after having consulted with the land-lord, provided that the latter has no reasonable grounds for opposing it. A recommendation was also made to seek an agreement on the inclusion of this standard clause in tenancy contracts.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Sweden has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 June 2011 at the 1115th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy