AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 31073/96
by Jan PETTERSSON
against Sweden
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 21 May 1997, the following members being present:
Mrs. G.H. THUNE, President
MM. J.-C. GEUS
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
H. DANELIUS
F. MARTINEZ
M.A. NOWICKI
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 8 April 1996 by
Jan Pettersson against Sweden and registered on 19 April 1997 under
file No. 31073/96;
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 born in 1947, resides in Borås.
Before the Commission he is represented by Mr Bela Simon, a lawyer
practising in Stockholm.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be
summarised as follows.
In 1973 the applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident. He
claimed compensation under a private traffic insurance, but could not
reach an agreement with the insurance company, Trygg-Hansa, as to the
degree of his disability and the amount of compensation to be awarded.
On 16 November 1995 the applicant, therefore, brought the dispute
before the District Court (tingsrätten) in Stockholm.
The case was assigned to the judge G.S. In addition to being a
district court judge, G.S. was also, in 1995, a substitute to the
chairman of the Accident and Health Insurance Board (Olycksfalls- och
sjukförsäkringsnämnden), established by the Swedish Association of
Insurance Companies (Sveriges Försäkringsförbund) of which Trygg-Hansa
is a member. The functions of the Board include, inter alia, giving
the respective companies advisory opinions in individual insurance
cases in which the insured do not accept the companies' decisions.
On account of G.S.'s position on the above Board, the applicant
claimed that he could not be considered impartial in the case between
the applicant and Trygg-Hansa. However, by decision of 22 January 1996
the District Court, sitting with another judge, rejected the
applicant's challenge. It noted that G.S. had not dealt with the
applicant's case in his capacity as a substitute member of the Board
and that, in any event, the Traffic Insurance Board (Trafikskade-
nämnden), of which G.S. was not a member, was responsible for giving
advisory opinions in traffic insurance cases.
On 28 February 1996 the Svea Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt), by
a final decision, rejected the applicant's appeal against the District
Court's decision.
The insurance dispute is still pending before the District Court
where, apparently, G.S. is still in charge of the case. A preparatory
hearing is scheduled for 29 May 1997.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains of the decisions to reject his challenge
against G.S. and claims that his case is not examined by an impartial
tribunal on account of this judge's position on the Accident and Health
Insurance Board. He invokes Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
THE LAW
The applicant complains of the decisions to reject his challenge
against G.S. and claims that his case is not examined by an impartial
tribunal on account of this judge's position on the Accident and Health
Insurance Board. He invokes Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the
Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:
"1. In the determination of his civil rights ..., everyone
is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an ... impartial
tribunal ..."
The Commission recalls that the dispute between the applicant and
the insurance company concerns the applicant's right to compensation
under a private insurance and thus relates to his "civil rights".
Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) is therefore applicable to the dispute as
such.
The applicant claims that the dispute between him and the
insurance company is not examined by an impartial tribunal on account
of judge G.S.'s position on the Accident and Health Insurance Board.
In this respect, the Commission recalls its established case-law
that the question whether court proceedings satisfy the requirements
of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention can only be answered
by examining the proceedings as a whole, that is to say only once they
have been concluded (cf., e.g., No. 12952/87, Dec. 6.11.90, D.R. 67,
p. 175).
In the present case, the Commission recalls that the proceedings
are still pending in the District Court and that, consequently, the
development of the whole proceedings and the outcome of the case are
unknown. It thus considers that the application is, in this respect,
premature.
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, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE
Secretary President
to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy