Comité de filtrage/Screening Panel
AFFAIRE S.J., B.J. ET G.J. c. SUÈDE
CASE OF S.J., B.J. AND G.J. v. SWEDEN
(10/1998/913/1125)
DÉCISION/DECISION
STRASBOURG
7 août/August 1998
In the case of S.J., B.J. and G.J. v. Sweden[1],
The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights, constituted in accordance with Article 48 § 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) and Rule 26 of Rules of Court B[2],
Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 26 June 1998, and composed of the following judges:
MrR. Pekkanen, Chairman,
MrsE. Palm,
MrA.N. Loizou,
and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,
Having regard to the application against the Kingdom of Sweden lodged with the Court on 25 February 1998 by three Swedish nationals, Mr S.J., Mr B.J. and Mr G.J., within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 § 1 and Article 47 of the Convention;
Whereas Sweden has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46 of the Convention) and ratified Protocol No. 9 to the Convention, Article 5 of which amends Article 48 of the Convention so as to enable a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals having lodged a complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) to refer the case to the Court;
Noting that the present case has not been referred to the Court by either the Government of the respondent State or the Commission under Article 48 § 1 (a) or (d) of the Convention;
Having regard to the Commission’s report of 3 December 1997 on the application (no. 21073/92) lodged with the Commission by Mr S.J., Mr B.J. and Mr G.J. on 25 November 1991;
Whereas the first two applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair and public hearing by a tribunal) that they had not been afforded an oral hearing or an opportunity to complete their appeal in proceedings before a Swedish civil court, to which they were a party;
Whereas the third applicant complained that there had been a violation of the above provision as well as of Article 13 on account of the alleged failure of the courts to inform him of the proceedings;
Whereas the applicants, in specifying the object of their application, as required by Rule 34 § 1 (a) of Rules of Court B, stated that they sought a decision by the Court holding that there had been breaches of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarding them just satisfaction;
Whereas the third applicant did not reiterate his complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;
Having regard to Article 48 of the Convention and Rule 34 §§ 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,
1.Finds that
(a)the case raises no serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention, as the Court has already established case-law on the relevant requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to fair and public hearing by a tribunal); and
(b)the case does not, for any other reason, warrant consideration by the Court as, in the event of a finding that there has been a breach of the Convention, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe can award the applicants just satisfaction, having regard to any proposals made by the Commission;
2.Decides, therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be considered by the Court.
Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on 7 August 1998 pursuant to Rule 34 § 4 of Rules of Court B.
Signed: Raimo Pekkanen
Chairman
Signed: Herbert Petzold
Registrar
[1]Notes by the Registrar
. The case is numbered 10/1998/913/1125. The first number is the case’s position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the case’s position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.
[2]. Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, apply to all cases concerning States bound by Protocol No. 9.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy