AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 24955/94
by S.I.N.
against Sweden
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 28 February 1996, the following members being present:
Mrs. G.H. THUNE, Acting President
MM. H. DANELIUS
G. JÖRUNDSSON
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
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 3 June 1993 by
S.I.N. against Sweden and registered on 22 August 1994 under file
No. 24955/94;
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 1947, and residing
in Karlstad.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be
summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner of the house and land known as
Semlan 6 in Karlstad. In 1989 the applicant noticed that there was
mould in the house.
On 21 April 1989 the applicant applied for financial assistance
for the repair of his house from the Fund for Humidity and Mould Damage
(fonden för fukt- och mögelskador).
By virtue of section 1 of the 1985 Decree on the State Fund for
repairing humidity and mould damage in small houses (SFS 1985:1119
Förordning om den statliga fonden för avhjälpande av fukt- och
mögelskador i småhus, m.m.), hereinafter "the 1985 Decree", the
relevant financial assistance may be granted within the limits of the
financial means of the State Fund.
On 18 December 1991 the Board of the Fund (fondstyrelsen),
hereinafter "the Board", granted the applicant's application and
offered the applicant assistance for certain measures it found
necessary in order to remove the mould. After the applicant had invited
tenders from three firms the Board decided, on 11 June 1992, to finance
his repair costs up to SEK 159,075. A further SEK 27,900 remained
payable by the applicant.
The applicant further requested that he be compensated for
additional consumption of electricity during the repairs. On
2 December 1992 the Board rejected his request. No appeal lay against
the Board's decision.
The applicant requested the Board to re-examine his request for
compensation for additional electricity consumption and further
requested the Board to pay him SEK 516 for wallpaper and to pay the
inspection provided for the purposes of the guarantee.
On 8 June 1994 the Board refused to change its decision of
2 December 1992 and rejected the applicant's additional requests. As
regards the wallpaper the Board stated that the relevant costs were
caused by a mistake made by the firm and that the firm had agreed to
reimburse part of the costs. The Board found that the dispute was
between the applicant and the firm. Furthermore, the Board stated that
the 1985 Decree did not regulate the extent to which the Fund finances
repair costs. The Board found that the inspection did not constitute
a cost which the Board should finance. No appeal lay against the
Board's decision.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains, under Article 6 of the Convention, that
his right to a fair hearing was violated since the decision of the
Board could not be appealed against to a tribunal. He submits that the
State should bear all the costs caused by the repair to his house. He
further complains that he did not have an effective remedy before a
national authority and invokes Articles 13 and 17 of the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains that his requests for financial
assistance for the repair of his house were not dealt with by a
tribunal.
In so far as relevant Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the
Convention reads as follows:
"1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations
..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing ... by an independent
and impartial tribunal established by law."
The Commission recalls that in order for Article 6 (Art. 6) of
the Convention to apply to the proceedings in question it must first
ascertain whether there was a dispute over a right which can be said,
at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law (cf.,
for example, Eur. Court H.R., Masson and Van Zon judgment of
28 September 1995, Series A no. 327, paras. 48-52).
The Commission recalls that under Swedish law the relevant Board
granted financial assistance for repairing houses that had been damaged
by mould. The Board granted the support only as far as means in the
Fund for the Humidity and Mould Damage allowed. The Commission also
recalls that the Board had granted the applicant financial assistance
up to SEK 159,075. In the present case the dispute concerned the
possibility of obtaining additional support. However, the Board was not
here dealing with any right of the applicant, as the Board indeed
stated.
In view of the above the Commission finds that the applicant's
claims did not concern a "right" which could arguably be said to be
recognised under Swedish law and that Article 6 (Art. 6) therefore does
not apply to the relevant proceedings.
It follows that this part of the application is incompatible
ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and must be
rejected under Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
2. The applicant further complains, under Article 13 (Art. 13) of
the Convention, that he did not have an effective remedy before a
national authority. He also invokes Article 17 (Art. 17) of the
Convention.
As regards Articles 13 and 17 (Art. 13, 17) of the Convention,
the Commission finds that the applicant's reference to these provisions
amount in substance to the same complaint as that made under Article
6 (Art. 6) of the Convention. The Commission, having regard to its
findings above, considers that no separate issue arises under Articles
13 or 17 (Art. 13, 17) of the Convention.
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, by a majority,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary Acting President
to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber
(M.-T. SCHOEPFER) (G.H. THUNE)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy