AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 13348/87
by Esbjörn Hellström
against Sweden
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 12 July 1989, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
S. TRECHSEL
F. ERMACORA
G. SPERDUTI
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
G. BATLINER
H. VANDENBERGHE
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
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 22 May 1987
by Esbjörn Hellström against Sweden and registered on 30 October 1987
under file No. 13348/87;
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 applicant, may be
summarised as follows.
The applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1946. He is a
teacher by profession and is resident at Delsbo, Sweden.
The applicant submits that he made an agreement on 16
September 1983 with the Director of Education (skoldirektör) of the
municipality of Umeå that he be employed by the municipality to carry
out a project with the aim of theoretically and practically examining
the possibilities of using a certain pedagogical method in the
comprehensive school (Waldorfpedagogik). The applicant worked on the
project for a few months in 1984 and was remunerated by the
municipality, but by a decision of the School Board (skolstyrelsen) of
30 January 1985 the project was abandoned. The applicant appealed
against the decision to the Administrative Court of Appeal
(kammarrätten) of Sundsvall, which rejected the appeal, and to the
Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten) which on 28 January
1987 refused leave to appeal.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains that the effect of the School Board's
decision was that his family lost its main source of income and had to
rely on social benefits. The applicant had to leave Umeå together with
his family and, as the events there affected his possibilities of
finding work elsewhere, the family had to move twice. The applicant
invokes Article 8 of the Convention.
2. The applicant further complains of discrimination on account
of his political, philosophical and scientific qualifications and on
account of his membership in a certain trade union. He points out that
he has published his political views in the Critical Education
Journal (Kritisk utbildningstidskrift). He invokes Articles 9, 10 and
11 in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.
3. The applicant finally alleges a violation of Article 13 of the
Convention in that the Supreme Administrative Court did not grant him
leave to appeal.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains that the decision of the School Board
interfered with his right to respect for his private and family life
and his home, as his family had to rely on social benefits and had to
move twice on account of the decision. He invokes Article 8 (Art. 8)
of the Convention, which reads as follows in paragraph 1:
"Everyone has the right to respect for his private
and family life, his home and his correspondence."
The Commission finds that although the decision of the School
Board might have had repercussions on the applicant's private and
family life and his home it cannot be considered to have had such
effects as to amount to an interference with the applicant's rights
under Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention.
It follows that in this respect the application is manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
2. The applicant also complains of discrimination on account of
his political, philosophical and scientific qualifications and on
account of his membership in a certain trade union. He invokes
Articles 9 (Art. 9), 10 (Art. 10) and 11 (Art. 11) in conjunction
with Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention.
The Commission recalls that although the Convention does not
guarantee a right of recruitment to the public service, it does not
follow that in other respects civil servants fall outside the scope of
the Convention (see Eur. Court H.R., Glasenapp and Kosiek judgments of
28 August 1986, Series A No. 104, p. 26, para. 49-50 and Series A No.
105, p. 20, para. 35-36). The applicant accordingly has a right to
enjoy the rights and freedoms afforded to him by the Convention
"without discrimination on any ground".
The Commission considers, however, that the applicant has not
substantiated his allegation that he has been subjected to
discrimination in respect of the enjoyment of his rights under
Articles 9 (Art. 9), 10 (Art. 10) and 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application is also
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
3. Finally, the applicant invokes Article 13 (Art. 13) of the
Convention which guarantees to everyone having an arguable claim of
being a victim of a violation of any of the other provisions of the
Convention the right to an effective remedy.
With reference to its considerations and conclusions above,
the Commission finds that the applicant has not made any arguable
claim of a violation of any of the other provisions of the
Convention.
It follows that the applicant's complaint under Article 13
(Art. 13) is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of
Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)