AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 12655/87
by Leif RYDSTRÖM
against Sweden
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 6 October 1987, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
J.A. FROWEIN
E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
G. BATLINER
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ
Mrs. J. LIDDY
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 13 October 1986
by Leif Rydström against Sweden and registered on 19 January 1987
under file N° 12655/87;
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 applicant is a Swedish citizen born in 1946. He is a
lawyer by profession and resides in Stockholm.
The applicant has previously submitted an application to the
Commission in which he complained about his apprehension by two police
officers at an underground station in Stockholm. The Commission
declared this application inadmissible on 9 October 1985
(No. 11470/85, Dec. 9.10.85, unpublished).
The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant,
may be summarised as follows.
On 11 May 1986 the applicant arrived at Helsingborg, Sweden,
by ferry. At the customs his car was taken out for inspection. The
applicant's car was taken to a garage in order to be searched,
together with the applicant's luggage. The applicant and a friend of
his were in the meantime brought to a room where they remained during
the search. They were informed that the car and the luggage would be
searched by a dog trained to find drugs. The applicant was not
present during the search of his car and his luggage.
No illegal goods were found and after approximately 45 minutes
the applicant could leave.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that during the search of his car and
luggage he was held illegally under arrest and he maintains that there
is in Sweden no effective remedy which he could use in respect of such
a complaint. Furthermore, the applicant complains that the search of
his luggage without his presence exposed him to a great risk of theft
or any other loss of his property. He invokes Articles 5 and 13 of
the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicant has complained that he was illegally held under
arrest while his car and his luggage were being searched by the
customs officials on his arrival in Sweden. He invokes in this
respect Article 5 of the Convention.
It is true that Article 5 of the Convention secures to
everyone the right to liberty and security of person and provides that
no one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the circumstances set
out in Article 5 para. 1 (a) - (f).
However, the Commission is not required to decide whether or
not the facts alleged by the applicant disclose any appearance of a
violation of this provision as, under Article 26 of the Convention, it
may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been
exhausted according to the generally recognised rules of international
law.
In the present case the applicant failed to bring an action
against the State before the ordinary courts based on Section 3 of the
Act on Compensation in Case of Restrictions of Liberty (lag om
ersättning vid frihetsinskränkning) and has, therefore, not exhausted
the remedies available to him under Swedish law. Moreover, an
examination of the case as it has been submitted does not disclose the
existence of any special circumstances which might have absolved the
applicant, according to the generally recognised rules of
international law, from exhausting the domestic remedies at his
disposal.
It follows that the applicant has not complied with the
condition as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and this part of
the application must accordingly be rejected under Article 27 para. 3
of the Convention.
2. The applicant has furthermore complained that he did not have
in Sweden any effective remedy in regard to his complaint that he was
illegally held under arrest in the circumstances of the present case.
He relies in this respect on Article 13 of the Convention. It
follows, however, from the Commission's above conclusion that this
part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning
of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.
3. The applicant has complained, finally, that the search of his
luggage and his car exposed him to a great risk of theft or any other
loss of property. He invokes in this respect Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 to the Convention. However, the applicant has not substantiated
that his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
have been violated.
It follows that this part of the application is also
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 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)