SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 11320/05
by John ISELSTEN
against Sweden
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 4 January 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ.-P.Costa, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrR. Türmen,
MrsA. Mularoni,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 March 2005,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr John Iselsten, is a Swedish national who was born in 1932 and lives in Stockholm.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant sued the State for damages, claiming negligence in the administration of his bankruptcy. The case was lodged on 17 March 1997 with the District Court, which subsequently rejected the applicant’s claim. Upon appeal, finding that the District Court had committed a procedural error, the Court of Appeal remitted the case to the District Court, a decision which was then appealed against by the State. The Supreme Court refused the State leave to appeal.
On 23 April 1999 the proceedings were re-initiated in the District Court. On 21 February 2001 the District Court again decided to the applicant’s disadvantage after two oral preparatory hearings, each of which had been followed by written communications between the parties, and a main oral hearing.
On 23 April 2001 the applicant’s appeal reached the Court of Appeal. The other party submitted its final reply on 6 August 2001. On 29 December 2003 the Court of Appeal decided a number of procedural questions in the case. It decided not to take oral evidence, including the applicant’s own testimony, as requested by the applicant, on the ground that this had not been requested at first instance, so that he was precluded from raising it in the Court of Appeal. The applicant also wished that all the witnesses in the District Court be heard again by the Court of Appeal.
On 10 June 2004 the Court of Appeal decided that an oral hearing was unnecessary. Considering that the issue to be decided concerned only questions of law which had been thoroughly assessed in the District Court, the Court of Appeal found that an oral hearing would be “manifestly unnecessary”. It also stated that there was only written evidence to be assessed in the case.
Before the decision not to hold an oral hearing was taken, the parties had been invited to submit their comments on the possibility of a decision in camera. The applicant had then only stated that he preferred that a hearing be held, without developing this further. On the same day, 10 June 2004, the appeal was rejected on the merits. On 20 July 2004 the appeal reached the Supreme Court. On 14 September 2004 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
In each instance the applicant had complained that the courts and their members were partial as they had previously handled his cases. The Court of Appeal had previously tried claims by the applicant regarding the partiality of its members. No judge had been found to be challengeable.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he was denied an oral hearing in the Court of Appeal and that the overall length of the proceedings was excessive.
2. He also complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that he has been denied the possibility of presenting certain evidence, that the judges were partial as they had previously been involved in the case, that the defendant’s counsel had been allowed to interrupt him during the main hearing in the District Court and that the District Court manipulated the tapes from the main hearing.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains that, in violation of Article 6 of the Convention, he was denied an oral hearing in the Court of Appeal and that the overall length of the proceedings was excessive. The relevant part of Article 6 reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The applicant further complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that he was denied the possibility of presenting certain evidence, that the judges were partial as they had previously been involved in the case, that the defendant’s counsel were allowed to interrupt him during the main hearing in the District Court and that the District Court manipulated the tapes from the main hearing.
The Court has examined the remainder of the applicant’s complaints as submitted by him. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the invoked Articles of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Adjourns the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning the denial of an oral hearing and the length of the proceedings;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
S. Dollé J.-P. Costa
Section RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy