AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 14220/88
by Göran RAVNSBORG
against Sweden
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 10 October 1990, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
J.A. FROWEIN
F. ERMACORA
G. SPERDUTI
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G. H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ RUIZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
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 12 July 1988
by Göran RAVNSBORG against Sweden and registered on 16 September 1988
under file No. 14220/88;
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 is a Swedish citizen born in 1933 and resident
in Lund. The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as
follows.
The applicant is personal general proxy for his adoptive
mother K. and administrator ("god man") for his mother's friend M.
Both K. and M. became unable to care for themselves due to old age and
with the applicant's agreement K. and M. were placed in a nursing home
by the Municipality of Gothenburg. After one year in the home, K. and M.
became liable to pay a medical care fee calculated on the basis of their
net income and they received invoices from the home. The applicant
duly paid the invoices on behalf of K. and M.
The applicant later discovered that the home was a charitable
foundation. He considered that there was no provision in law for the
home to act on behalf of the Municipality and that he had paid the
medical care fees to the wrong creditor. He stopped making the
payments and instituted proceedings seeking a declaration from the
Court that the home was not the legal creditor and had no right or
lawful mandate to act on behalf of the Municipality of Gothenburg. He
also claimed repayment of fees.
Mr. F., M.'s Chief Guardian (överförmyndare), intervened to
order the applicant as M.'s administrator to continue to pay the
medical fees. The applicant refused. Mr. F. brought proceedings
seeking an order of the Court dismissing the applicant as
administrator. The Chief Guardian Board of the Municipality intervened
and Mr. F. was removed from his position as M.'s Chief Guardian.
The Chief Guardian Board asked the District Court (tings-
rätten) of Gothenburg to appoint an additional administrator to act
with the applicant in respect of K. The applicant considered this an
outrageous intervention and counterclaimed, seeking the immediate
dismissal of all the members of the Chief Guardian Board and making
very sharp comments as to the way its members performed their duties
as public trustees. In a letter to the Court, the applicant stated,
inter alia:
"As a general assessment about the Chief Guardian Board's
actions, which are strongly criticised on good grounds, it
should be stated that the Board can be described as a basket of
municipal political rotten eggs (rötägg) of different colours
but of a common denominator and super ideology, i.e. the
fascist exercise of power, in connection with which the rights
and reasonable interests of the individual municipal member -
if their existence is at all recognised in their
intoxication with power - may never involve any powerful
questioning of the demands of the collective or the absolute
right of the politician governed (politrukstyrda) subject,
such as it in each individual case is defined as to its
contents by the so called democratically ... representative
People's Court (whose official name is the Boards or Councils
of the Municipality of Gothenburg) with their manning by, to
a surprisingly high degree, local public mob or - as above -
pure rotten eggs."
On 18 May 1987, the District Court of Gothenburg, in
application of Chapter 9 Section 5 of the Code of Judicial Procedure
(rättegångsbalken), sentenced the applicant without a public hearing
to a fine of 1000 SEK for contempt of court in respect of the
statements in the above letter.
On 17 June 1987, the District Court rejected, without a public
hearing, the Chief Guardian Board's claim for an administrator as well
as the applicant's claim for the dismissal of the members of that
Board.
The applicant appealed against both the decisions of
18 May 1987 and 17 June 1987. He asked for a public hearing in
respect of his appeal against the fine for contempt of court. In his
appeal against the decision of 17 June 1987, the applicant requested
that the case be referred back to the District Court for
re-examination, including an oral hearing.
The Court of Appeal for Western Sweden (hovrätten för
Västra Sverige) on 4 November 1987 upheld the District Court's fine
and in addition held the applicant guilty of contempt of court in
respect of statements made in his appeal and imposed an additional
fine of 1000 SEK. On page 12 of his appeal, the applicant had stated:
"If the Court of Appeal would, in any respect, come to a
different judgment from what I have requested, I will of
course appeal, in order to be able to submit an application
immediately to the European Commission and to the Human
Rights Committee in Geneva respectively. The risk is
extremely small that a generally lethargic and, as a result
of its members' many years of indoctrination against human
rights in the Government Offices, lax final instance will
grant leave to appeal in a case like this."
The Court of Appeal stated that a hearing was not necessary in
the case. In respect of the applicant's allegation that the District
Court had acted wrongly when not giving him the opportunity of
commenting when the issue of convicting him of contempt of court had
arisen, the Court of Appeal found that this omission was in accordance
with case-law and legal doctrine when the question of punishment for
contempt of court in a letter to a Court had arisen. There was thus no
fault on the District Court's part in that respect.
In another decision of the same date, the Court of Appeal
dismissed the applicant's appeal against the merits of the decision of
17 June 1987. The Court found that, with regard to the appointment of
an administrator, the District Court's decision was not to the
detriment of the applicant or K. This part of the appeal could
therefore not be examined. The Court also found that the applicant
and K. had no right to appeal against the decision not to dismiss the
members of the Board. Finally, the Court found that the applicant had
made improper statements in his letter of appeal and fined him another
1000 SEK. The applicant had stated on page 7 of his appeal:
"The fact that we ... ask that the case be referred back to
the District Court for a further examination does not imply
that we, even for a moment, would accept that the case
... once again is dominated by, for instance, the Chief Judge
Sven Wieselgren's far-reaching fascist way of presiding with
the court's ... gross partiality in favour of municipal interests,
collegiate corruption, and abuse of public authority through
autocracy, shadow fear and dark man principles. Over all,
our experience of the generally autocratic deeply partial
implementation of norms by the District Court in favour of the
municipality, as it is performed by one Stefan
Wikmark, one Sven Ordqvist, one Kenneth Ström and one
Sven Wieselgren ... is such that we will ask for the
composition of a special District Court in which the President
is chosen from outside the Gothenburg District Court."
The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court (högsta domstolen)
which refused leave to appeal on 5 January 1988.
Chapter 9 Section 5 of the Code of Judicial Procedure provided
as follows at the relevant time:
(Swedish)
"Den som vid sammanträde inför rätten stör förhandlingen
eller fotograferar i rättssalen eller bryter mot föreskrift
eller förbud, som har meddelats med stöd av 5 kap. 9§, döms
till böter. Till samma straff döms den som muntligen inför
rätten eller i rättegångsskrift uttalar sig otillbörligt."
(English translation)
"Anyone who, at a court session, disturbs the hearing or takes
photographs in the courtroom, or fails to obey directions or
prohibitions issued by virtue of Chapter 5, Section 9, shall
be punished by a fine. The same punishment shall be imposed on
anyone who, orally or in a paper filed with the court,
expresses himself in an unseemly manner."
Section 9 of Chapter 9 provided that the maximum fine which
could be imposed was one thousand crowns.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains of the imposition of fines by the
courts for contempt of court. He complains that these decisions
constituted a "secret inquisitional penal process", since he did not
receive a public hearing or have any opportunity to refute the
allegations. He invokes Article 6 paras. 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention.
2. The applicant also complains of a violation of Article 10 of
the Convention in relation to the imposition of the fines.
3. The applicant also complains of the court's refusal
on 4 November 1987 to allow him a public hearing in the dispute as to
the appointment of a special administrator for K. He considered the
application for such appointment was a serious attack on the right to
manage one's own business and appoint one's own proxy. He invokes
Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicant has complained of being fined for contempt of
court on three occasions without receiving a public hearing. He has
invoked Article 6 paras. 1 (Art. 6-1), 2 (Art. 2) and 3 (Art. 3) of
the Convention in this regard.
The applicant has also complained that the imposition of fines
for contempt of court were in violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the
Convention interfering with his freedom of expression.
The Commission considers that these complaints cannot be
determined without first having obtained written observations from the
parties. The examination of this part of the application must
therefore be adjourned.
2. The applicant has also complained of the refusal of a public
hearing in respect of the proceedings instituted by the Chief Guardian
Board for the appointment of a new administrator. He invokes Article
6 paras. 1 (Art. 6-1) and 3 (Art. 6-3) in this respect.
The Commission notes that the proceedings had been instituted
by the Chief Guardian Board, which sought to appoint an administrator
to act on behalf of K. On 17 June 1987 the District Court rejected
this application without a public hearing and on 4 November 1987, the
Court of Appeal refused the applicant's appeal in which he asked for
the case to be referred to the District Court for re-examination,
including an oral hearing.
The Commission recalls that the District Court resolved two
issues in its decision of 17 June 1987, namely the Chief Guardian
Board's claim that an administrator be appointed to act with the
applicant, and the applicant's claim that the members of the Chief
Guardian Board be dismissed.
The Commission finds that the first mentioned issue was
decided in favour of the applicant and, consequently, there remained
no dispute to be determined by the Court of Appeal in that respect.
As regards the second issue, the Commission finds that this dispute
did not relate to the applicant's "civil rights and obligations".
Nor was there any "criminal charge" against the applicant.
Accordingly, Article 6 paras. 1 (Art. 6-1) and 3 (Art. 6-3) did
not apply to those proceedings before the District Court.
It follows that these complaints are incompatible rationae
materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of
Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).
For these reasons, the Commission by a majority
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE
the applicant's complaints concerning the refusal of a public
hearing in the proceedings relating to the appointment of a new
administrator;
DECIDES TO ADJOURN the remainder of the application.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy