[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> LANGBORGER v. SWEDEN - 11179/84 [1989] ECHR 11 (22 June 1989) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1989/11.html Cite as: [1989] ECHR 11, (1990) 12 EHRR 416

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

In the Langborger case*,

_______________

* Note by the registry: The case is numbered 20/1987/143/197.

The second figure indicates the year in which the case was referred

to the Court and the first figure indicates its place on the list

of cases referred in that year; the last two figures indicate,

respectively, the case's order on the list of cases and of

originating applications (to the Commission) referred to the

Court since its creation.

_______________

The European Court of Human Rights, taking its decision in plenary

session pursuant to Rule 50 of the Rules of Court and composed of the

following judges:

Mr R. Ryssdal, President,

Mr J. Cremona,

Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson,

Mrs D. Bindschedler-Robert,

Mr F. Gölcüklü,

Mr F. Matscher,

Mr J. Pinheiro Farinha,

Mr L.-E. Pettiti,

Mr B. Walsh,

Sir Vincent Evans,

Mr R. Macdonald,

Mr C. Russo,

Mr R. Bernhardt,

Mr A. Spielmann,

Mr J. De Meyer,

Mr J.A. Carrillo Salcedo,

Mr N. Valticos,

Mr S.K. Martens,

Mrs E. Palm,

Mr I. Foighel,

and also of Mr M.-A. Eissen, Registrar, and Mr H. Petzold, Deputy

Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 23 February and 23 May 1989,

Delivers the following judgment which was adopted on the

last-mentioned date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission

of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 18 December 1987, within the

three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47

(art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention"). It originated in

an application (no. 11179/84) against Sweden lodged with the

Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by a Swedish national,

Mr Rolf Langborger, on 7 September 1984.

The Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44,

art. 48) and to the declaration whereby Sweden recognised the

compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46).

The object of the request was to obtain a decision from the Court as

to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent

State of its obligations under Articles 6, 8, 11 and 13 (art. 6,

art. 8, art. 11, art. 13) of the Convention and Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33

para. 3 d) of the Rules of Court, the applicant stated that he wished to

take part in the proceedings pending before the Court and designated the

person who would represent him (Rule 30).

3. The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio

Mr G. Lagergren, the elected judge of Swedish nationality (Article 43

of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the

Court (Rule 21 para. 3 b)). On 29 January 1988, in the presence of the

Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the other five

members, namely Mr J. Cremona, Mr Thór Vilhjámsson, Mr J. Pinheiro

Farinha, Mr L.-E. Pettiti and Mr J. Gersing (Article 43 in fine of the

Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43). Subsequently,

Mrs D. Bindschedler-Robert, substitute judge, and the newly elected

judge of Swedish nationality, Mrs E. Palm, who took up her duties

before the hearing, replaced respectively Mr Gersing, who had died,

and Mr Lagergren, who had resigned (Article 43 of the Convention and

Rules 2 para. 3, 22 para. 1 and 24 para. 1) (art. 43).

4. Mr Ryssdal assumed the office of President of the Chamber

(Rule 21 para. 5) and, through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the

Swedish Government ("the Government"), the Delegate of the Commission

and the applicant's representative on the need for a written procedure

(Rule 37 para. 1). In accordance with the order made in consequence, the

registry received the applicant's memorial on 2 May 1988 and the

Government's memorial on 5 May 1988.

In a letter which reached the registry on 21 June 1988, the Secretary

to the Commission informed the Registrar that the Delegate would

submit his observations at the hearing.

Having consulted, through the Registrar, those who would be appearing

before the Court, the President directed on 12 December 1988 that the

oral proceedings should open on 21 February 1989 (Rule 38).

5. On 27 January 1989 the Chamber decided under Rule 50 to

relinquish jurisdiction forthwith in favour of the plenary Court.

6. The hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building,

Strasbourg, on the appointed day. The Court had held a preparatory

meeting immediately beforehand.

There appeared before the Court:

(a) for the Government

Mr H. Corell, Ambassador, Under-Secretary

for Legal and Consular Affairs

at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Agent,

Mrs L. Moore, Legal Adviser at the

Ministry of Justice,

Mr H. Julius, Legal Adviser at the

Ministry of Housing and Town Planning,

Mr P. Boqvist, Legal Adviser at the Ministry

of Foreign Affairs, Counsel;

(b) for the Commission

Sir Basil Hall, Delegate;

(c) for the Applicant

Mr B. Grennberg, Patent Agent, Counsel.

The Court heard addresses by Mr Corell for the Government, by

Sir Basil Hall for the Commission and by Mr Grennberg for the applicant,

as well as their replies to its questions.

The Commission and the Government lodged documents on 22 February and

20 March 1989 respectively.

AS TO THE FACTS

I. Particular circumstances of the case

A. Introduction

7. Mr Rolf Langborger is a Swedish national born in 1922. He is

a consultant engineer and resides at Solna, a town in the immediate

vicinity of Stockholm.

On 1 October 1982 he rented an appartment. The lease contained a

"negotiation clause" (förhandlingsklausul, see paragraph 16 below)

which was worded as follows:

"During the running of the lease the parties undertake to accept,

without prior termination of the lease, the rent and other conditions

agreed upon on the basis of the negotiation agreement

(förhandlingsordning) in force between, on the one hand, a landlords'

union affiliated to the Swedish Federation of Property Owners

(Sveriges Fastighetsägareförbund) and a landlord, who with his

property is affiliated to such a union, and, on the other hand, a

tenants' union affiliated to the National Tenants' Union

(Hyresgästernas riksförbund)."

An agreement between the two unions laid down the negotiating

procedure. For conducting the negotiations the tenants' union in

question received a commission of 0.3% of the rent (see paragraph 16

below).

8. The applicant was dissatisfied with the rent and with the fact

that he was represented by the Tenants' Union of the Greater Stockholm

Area (hyresgästföreningen i Stor-Stockholm, "the Tenants' Union"). He

therefore gave notice of his intention to terminate the lease in

accordance with Chapter 12, section 54 of the Land Act (jordabalken),

with a view to having its terms altered. He proposed to the landlord

the conclusion of a new agreement with a fixed rent and no negotiation

clause. Following the rejection of his offer, he brought the dispute

before the Rent Review Board (hyresnämnden) for Stockholm County

on 23 June 1983.

B. Proceedings before the Rent Review Board

9. In accordance with the legislation in force (see paragraph 19

below), the section of the Rent Review Board which examined the case

was composed of a chairman and two lay assessors (intresseledamöter).

At the time of his appointment, the chairman, Mr Göran Hogebrandt,

held a non-permanent judicial appointment as an associate judge in the

Court of Appeal. The two assessors, who were nominated respectively

by the Swedish Federation of Property Owners and the National Tenants'

Union, were experts on the administration of apartment buildings and

on the problems of tenants. One, Mr Jan Åke Hedin, the managing

director of his own electricity business, was also the president of

one of the district associations affiliated to the Stockholm

Landlords' Union (Stockholms Fastighetsägareförening, "the Landlords'

Union"). The other, Mr Gösta Gröndahl, a retired customs official,

was a member of the Tenants' Union and had previously been the

president of one of the district associations for nine years.

10. The applicant first challenged the two lay assessors because

they had been nominated by a landlords' association and a tenants'

organisation (see paragraph 19 below). He considered that they could

not decide his case objectively and impartially because the Tenants'

Union depended for its existence on the sums paid to it for conducting

the rent negotiations (see paragraph 16, last sub-paragraph, below)

and the Landlords' Union also derived a major part of its raison

d'être from its participation in these negotiations. In addition he

claimed that there was a risk of discrimination on political grounds

because the Tenants' Union was socialist in outlook, whereas he was a

local elected representative belonging to a moderate right wing

grouping. As regards the merits, he sought the deletion of the

negotiation clause from the lease and contested the amount of the

rent.

11. On 17 November 1983 the Rent Review Board held a hearing at

which the applicant and his representative and the landlord's

representative were present.

The chairman dismissed the applicant's challenge because the rules

governing the appointment of the lay assessors did not in themselves

provide a ground for such a challenge and because there were no other

grounds on which it could be based.

After having heard the views of the parties as to the merits of the

case, the Rent Review Board went on to state that its decision would

be available at its secretariat on 1 December 1983.

On that date it dismissed Mr Langborger's claims. Its decision, which

was communicated to him through the post, referred, inter alia, to the

declarations of the competent minister during the examination of the

Rent Negotiation Bill (see paragraph 16 below) regarding the

discretion conferred on rent review boards in deciding whether

negotiation clauses should be retained.

C. The proceedings in the Housing and Tenancy Court

12. Mr Langborger appealed from this decision to the Housing and

Tenancy Court (bostadsdomstolen). He relied on Articles 6, 11 and 13

(art. 6, art. 11, art. 13) of the Convention and sought a thorough

examination of the challenge which he had submitted at first instance;

he also challenged the lay assessors of this court. As to the merits,

he repeated his claim that he should not be represented by the

Tenants' Union and that he should be permitted to fix his rent in

direct negotiations with the landlord.

13. The court which examined the applicant's appeal was composed

of four members (see paragraph 23 below).

The President, Mr Hans Svahn, had, until his appointment to the

Housing and Tenancy Court, presided over a Chamber of the Svea Court

of Appeal and still retained this post, on a formal basis, while

exercising his new function.

The other lawyer, who acted as rapporteur, Mr Hans Anderberg, remained

a Rent Judge (see paragraph 19 below).

The two lay assessors had (like the assessors sitting on the Rent

Review Board) been nominated by, respectively, the Swedish Federation

of Property Owners and the National Tenants' Union (see paragraph 22

below). One was an expert on the administration of apartment buildings

and the other on tenants' problems. The first, Mr Bertil Tullberg,

was a titular lay assessor; before retiring he had worked for the

Stockholm Landlords' Union as legal adviser from 1943 and then as its

managing director. The second, Mrs Märta Kåremo, was a salaried

official of the National Tenants' Union, where she was responsible for

staff legal training. She sat on the Housing and Tenancy Court as a

substitute lay assessor.

14. The landlord of the flat was represented by the same official

of the Landlords' Union who had assisted him before the Rent Review

Board (see paragraph 11 above).

15. On 28 December 1983 the Housing and Tenancy Court informed

Mr Langborger by letter that it considered that it might "determine

the case as it was constituted at present and without a hearing".

On 23 February 1984 the rapporteur rejected the application

challenging the two lay assessors. The rules governing their

appointment could not in themselves constitute valid grounds for their

disqualification.

On 2 April 1984 the Housing and Tenancy Court dismissed the remainder

of Mr Langborger's appeal and upheld the Rent Review Board's decision.

It gave its ruling in private, in the absence of the parties and

without having held a hearing. Its decision was final.

The applicant received a photocopy of this decision through the post.

On 17 April 1984 he obtained a copy of the decision of 23 February

which, by error, had not yet been sent to him.

II. Domestic legislation and case-law

A. The negotiation clause

16. Section 2 of the 1978 Rent Negotiation Act

(hyresförhandlingslagen, "the 1978 Act") defines the negotiation

clause as a provision in a lease whereby the tenant agrees to be bound

by the terms of the lease, in particular regarding the rent, as

accepted by the association conducting the negotiations. It provides

that this clause is introduced or retained if this is not

unreasonable, having regard to the tenant's standard of living and his

opinion and to the opinion of other tenants affected by the clause.

A dispute regarding the insertion or retention of a negotiation clause

may be submitted to a rent review board. According to the preparatory

documents, this possibility was introduced to provide legal protection

for private individuals, in particular those who were not members of

the organisations which participated in the negotiations. The board

may exempt the party concerned from the obligation to accept a

negotiation clause; in deciding whether to do so, it must, inter alia,

weigh the interest in adopting a rational approach to rent

negotiations against the fundamental need for the greatest possible

contractual freedom for the individual (Government Bill

No. 1977/78:175, p. 130 et seq.).

Section 1 provides that these conditions are to be negotiated between,

on the one hand, the landlord or the landlord and a landlords'

organisation and, on the other hand, a tenants' organisation. The

tenant - who therefore has no right to negotiate - need not be a

member of the organisation. Under section 3, the system applies in

principle to all the flats in a building. These negotiations, which

must be conducted in the manner laid down in the Act, are not

compulsory but depend on the desiderata of the parties. If one of

them refuses to conclude an agreement, the dispute may be referred to

the Rent Review Board.

Under section 20, the rent may incorporate the amount - a percentage

of the rent agreed in the negotiations - payable to the tenants'

organisation for its role in these negotiations.

17. The principal advantage which the landlords' associations

derive from the system is that they only have to negotiate rents with

the tenants' organisations and not with the individual tenants. For

their part the tenants' organisations can exert, through their right

to represent the tenants, a continuous and durable influence on the

conditions of the market in rental accommodation.

At present this system applies to all accommodation owned by public

organisations and to 80% of privately owned buildings comprising more

than two flats.

B. The Rent Review Boards

18. Rent review boards were set up by the 1973 Lease Review Boards

and Rent Review Boards Act (lag 1973:188 om arrendenämnder och

hyresnämnder, the "1973 Act"). They hear, inter alia, disputes on

rents arising in connection with the provisions of Chapter 12 of the

Land Act.

19. Under section 5, each rent review board is composed of a

chairman - referred to as a Rent Judge - and two lay assessors, one of

whom must be familiar with the problems of the administration of

property and the other with those of tenants.

The chairman is appointed by the Government or by an authority

delegated by them, on the recommendation - which is always requested,

except in three specific cases - of the Judicial Appointments

Recommendation Board (tjänsteförslagsnämnd). He must have legal

training and his post is full-time.

The lay assessors are appointed by the National Board of the Judiciary

(Domstolsverket) for a term of office of three years, which is

generally renewed. Under section 6 para. 2 of the 1973 Act, the

representative organisations of the housing sector (essentially the

Swedish Federation of Property Owners and the National Tenants' Union)

must be able to put forward candidates when the appointment to be made

concerns their interest group. The persons selected sit in a personal

capacity and not as the representatives of their organisations.

The lay assessors are not designated in advance for each case, but

carry out their functions in accordance with a prepared schedule;

their duties are not full-time. In addition, if a board has several

sections, cases are, in practice, allocated on a geographical basis.

20. In principle, proceedings before a rent review board are oral.

They are governed by the general provisions of the Administrative Act

(förvaltningslagen), although the Code of Judicial Procedure applies

for certain formalities.

The board's decisions must contain a statement of reasons and be given

in public. They are pronounced on the day of the hearing or within

two weeks thereof at the latest. A copy is sent to the parties.

C. The Housing and Tenancy Court

21. The Housing and Tenancy Court was set up by an Act of 1974

(lag 1974:1081 om bostadsdomstol, "the 1974 Act") and has jurisdiction

for the whole of Sweden. It hears appeals lodged against the

decisions of the rent review boards. Its judgments are final.

22. The court is composed of at least three lawyers ("Housing

Judges"), a technical assessor - who in certain cases replaces one of

the lawyers - and a maximum of twelve lay assessors. All the members

are appointed by the Government for a term of office of three years

which is renewable. The lawyer members are, in general, judges, while

the lay assessors are experts on the housing market. An identical

nomination procedure to that operating for the appointment of lay

assessors to rent review boards (see paragraph 19 above) applies.

23. The court is always presided over by a lawyer. It can sit

with seven members or, as in this instance, with four. In the latter

case, there must be two housing judges and two lay assessors. If they

are unable to reach a majority decision, the president has a casting

vote.

The proceedings are written, but a hearing may be held if that appears

to be necessary for the purposes of the investigation. In some cases

argument is taken on a specific point, while in others it concerns the

case as a whole.

The Housing and Tenancy Court applies the general provisions of the

Code of Judicial Procedure. Except in certain cases - which are not

relevant here - its judgments are given in public. If the court

cannot give a decision at a hearing, it makes the text thereof

available to the parties at the registry and communicates to them a

copy by post.

24. The Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) has had occasion to rule

on the independence and impartiality of a lay assessor who had to sit

in a case involving the association which had nominated him (judgment

of 21 September 1982, case no. Ö 600/81, Hyresgästföreningen Kroken,

in Nytt Juridiskt Arkiv (NJA), 1982, p. 564). It held that there was

no ground for allowing the challenge.

The Supreme Court first considered the lay assessors' position in

general. It pointed out that their presence was "designed to ensure

that there were persons on the court who are well acquainted with the

questions with which the court has to deal and who can, in an

authoritative way, express the ideas of the interest groups

concerned."

It held that:

"... the fact that a member, generally speaking, represents a certain

interest group does not mean that he is biased when dealing with a

case where one of the parties belongs to this interest group. As was

stressed in the preparatory documents (NJA II 1974, p. 546), it is not

intended that the lay assessors in their capacity as judges should

feel bound by the interests which they can be said to represent. They

should, like the other members, carry out their duties as independent

judges and not as representatives of party interests."

Turning then to the case at hand, it rejected the challenge which was

based on "the viewpoint that every member who is closely linked to the

tenants' movement, for that reason alone, is biased when dealing with

such a case".

In setting out its reasoning the Supreme Court said inter alia:

"... it should first be pointed out that it is not the task of the lay

assessors of the Housing and Tenancy Court to represent their

organisations. They should represent the whole interest group in

question without regard to their involvement in a particular

organisation. The legislation is obviously based on the assumption

that the lay assessors will be able to deal impartially with disputes

even where the interests of their organisation are directly at issue,

and it is not compatible with the provisions of the Act generally to

regard members attached to an organisation as biased in such

disputes."

The Court added however:

"there may of course be grounds for challenging a member of the

court if he has been involved in the dispute before the court."

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

25. Mr Langborger's application to the Commission (no. 11179/84)

was lodged on 7 September 1984. He alleged that he had not been given

a public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. He also

complained of a breach of his rights to respect for his home, his

freedom of association and enjoyment of his possessions and of the

lack of an effective remedy before a national "authority". He relied

on Articles 6 para. 1, 8, 11 and 13 (art. 6-1, art. 8, art. 11,

art. 13) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

26. The Commission found the application admissible on

9 July 1986. In its report of 8 October 1987 (Article 31)

(art. 31), it expressed the unanimous opinion that:

- there had been a failure to comply with the requirements of

Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention regarding impartiality;

- there had been no violation of Articles 8 and 11 (art. 8,

art. 11) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1);

- it was not necessary to consider separately the complaint based on

Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention, nor to determine whether

there had been a failure to observe Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) as

regards the requirement of a public hearing and a public pronouncement

of the judgment.

The full text of the Commission's opinion is reproduced as an annex

to the present judgment.

FINAL SUBMISSIONS MADE TO THE COURT BY THE GOVERNMENT

27. At the hearing on 21 February 1989, the Government confirmed

their submission made in their memorial inviting the Court "to hold

that there has been no violation of the Convention in the present

case".

AS TO THE LAW

I. PRELIMINARY OBSERVATION

28. The applicant argued that his various complaints were to be

"taken together" and had "a common cause".

The Court considers it necessary first to take separately the

different articles relied upon. It will then appraise the case in the

light of the complaints viewed together.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 PARA. 1 (art. 6-1) OF THE CONVENTION

29. Mr Langborger alleged the violation of paragraph 1 of

Article 6 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, which is worded as follows:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone

is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an independent and

impartial tribunal ... ".

A. "Independent and impartial" tribunal

30. In the applicant's submission, his claim for a fixed rent and

no negotiation clause was not examined by an independent and impartial

tribunal. His true opponents, he argued, were the landlords'

association and tenants' organisation inasmuch as his proposal to

delete the negotiation clause from the lease threatened the interests

of both organisations since they derived their very existence from

rent negotiations. As the lay assessors sitting on the Rent Review

Board and the Housing and Tenancy Court were committed to the defence

of those interests, they could not assess his claim with the necessary

independence and impartiality.

This view was contested by the Government.

Like the Commission, the Court will limit its examination to the

Housing and Tenancy Court. This body was the last national organ to

determine both the questions of fact and the legal issues in dispute

(the Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981,

Series A no. 43, p. 23, para. 51).

31. When it decided the applicant's case, the Housing and Tenancy

Court was composed of two professional judges and two lay assessors

nominated respectively by the Swedish Federation of Property Owners

and the National Tenants' Union, and then appointed by the Government

(see paragraphs 13 and 22 above). The independence and impartiality

of the professional judges are not at issue. It remains to consider

the position of the two lay assessors.

32. In order to establish whether a body can be considered

"independent", regard must be had, inter alia, to the manner of

appointment of its members and their term of office, to the existence

of guarantees against outside pressures and to the question whether

the body presents an appearance of independence (see, inter alia, the

Campbell and Fell judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80,

pp. 39-40, para. 78).

As to the question of impartiality, a distinction must be drawn

between a subjective test, whereby it sought to establish the personal

conviction of a given judge in a given case, and an objective test,

aimed at ascertaining whether the judge offered guarantees sufficient

to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect (see, amongst other

authorities, the De Cubber judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A

no. 86, pp. 13-14, para. 24).

In this case it appears difficult to dissociate the question of

impartiality from that of independence.

33. The proceedings instituted in the Housing and Tenancy Court

concerned essentially the question whether the negotiation clause was

to be retained (see paragraphs 10 and 12 above) and not how it was to

be applied (the fixing of the rent payable by Mr Langborger).

34. Because of their specialised experience, the lay assessors,

who sit on the Housing and Tenancy Court with professional judges,

appear in principle to be extremely well qualified to participate in

the adjudication of disputes between landlords and tenants and the

specific questions which may arise in such disputes. This does not,

however, exclude the possibility that their independence and

impartiality may be open to doubt in a particular case.

35. In the present case there is no reason to doubt the personal

impartiality of the lay assessors in the absence of any proof.

As regards their objective impartiality and the question whether they

presented an appearance of independence, however, the Court notes that

they had been nominated by, and had close links with, two associations

which both had an interest in the continued existence of the

negotiation clause. As the applicant sought the deletion from the

lease of this clause, he could legitimately fear that the lay

assessors had a common interest contrary to his own and therefore that

the balance of interests, inherent in the Housing and Tenancy Court's

composition in other cases, was liable to be upset when the court came

to decide his own claim.

The fact that the Housing and Tenancy Court also included two

professional judges, whose independence and impartiality are not in

question, makes no difference in this respect.

36. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1).

B. Lack of a public hearing and public pronouncement

37. Mr Langborger also complained of a lack of a public hearing

and of the fact that there was no public pronouncement of the Housing

and Tenancy Court's decision.

In accordance with the Commission's opinion and in the light of the

conclusion reached in the preceding paragraph, the Court does not

consider it necessary to rule on a complaint which, moreover, the

applicant has not pursued before it.

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 8 AND 11 (art. 8, art. 11)

OF THE CONVENTION

38. Mr Langborger further alleged a breach of his right to respect

for his "home" within the meaning of Article 8 (art. 8). He

considered that the power, conferred on the Tenants' Union, to

negotiate on his behalf the amount of the rent for the flat in which

he lived was incompatible with the requirements of this provision

because the rights and obligations deriving from the lease were, in

his view, rooted in the notion of "home".

He also complained of a violation of his freedom of association

guaranteed under Article 11 (art. 11), on the ground that he had to

accept, against his will, the services of the Tenants' Union in the

negotiations, for which services he also had to pay.

The Government disputed these views.

39. The Court finds that the questions raised under these heads do

not come within the scope of the Articles relied upon.

IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 (P1-1)

40. According to Mr Langborger, the legal obligation to make

financial contributions to the Tenants' Union (see paragraphs 7

and 16 above) also entails a deprivation of possessions contrary to

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), according to which:

"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment

of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions

except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided

for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the

right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control

the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to

secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."

41. In the Court's view, the obligation to pay the small sums

involved cannot be regarded as inconsistent with this Article

(P1-1).

V. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 (art. 13) OF THE CONVENTION

42. Finally, the applicant relied on Article 13 (art. 13)

of the Convention, which provides as follows:

"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention

are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national

authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by

persons acting in an official capacity."

He claimed that he did not have any effective remedy against the

various breaches of the Convention of which he complained.

43. With regard to the alleged violations of Article 6 (art. 6)

of the Convention, the Court, like the Commission, does not find it

necessary to examine the case under Article 13 (art. 13), whose

requirements are less strict than, and are here absorbed by, those of

Article 6 (art. 6) (see, inter alia, the Pudas judgment of

27 October 1987, Series A no. 125-A, p. 17, para. 43).

Moreover, Article 13 cannot here be taken in conjunction with

Articles 8 and 11 (art. 13+8, art. 13+11) of the Convention, which are

themselves inapplicable (see paragraphs 38-39 above), or with

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (art. 13+P1-1) because the complaint based

on that provision has not given rise to an "arguable" claim (see

paragraph 41 above).

VI. EXAMINATION OF THE COMPLAINTS VIEWED TOGETHER

44. After having considered the different Articles separately, the

Court examined the case in the light of all the complaints viewed

together. This appraisal did not lead it to alter the various

conclusions set out above.

VII. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 (art. 50) OF THE CONVENTION

45. Mr Langborger sought just satisfaction under Article 50

(art. 50), according to which

"If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a legal

authority or any other authority of a High Contracting Party is

completely or partially in conflict with the obligations arising from

the ... Convention, and if the internal law of the said Party allows

only partial reparation to be made for the consequences of this

decision or measure, the decision of the Court shall, if necessary,

afford just satisfaction to the injured party."

A. Work carried out by the applicant

46. He claimed in the first place 30,000 Swedish crowns (SEK) for

his work on the case. On this question he referred to a rule which

was said to exist in Swedish law, but did not state whether his claim

related to the proceedings in the national courts, the proceedings

before the Convention organs, or both.

The Government disputed the claim, while the Commission left the

matter to be decided by the Court.

47. The Court affords "just satisfaction" only "if necessary", and

without being bound by domestic rules. Moreover the applicant, who

was assisted by counsel both in Sweden and in Strasbourg, has not

established why it is necessary to compensate him for his own work.

B. Pecuniary damage

48. Mr Langborger also claimed 50,000 SEK for the pecuniary damage

which he allegedly sustained as a result of the unfavourable method

used to calculate his rent.

49. It is not for the Court to speculate as to what the outcome of

the contested proceedings would have been if the violation which it

has found had not occurred, and there is nothing to show that a

decision taken by a court of a different composition would have been

in the applicant's favour.

C. Non-pecuniary damage

50. The applicant requested in addition 100,000 SEK in respect of

non-pecuniary damage. He argued that a purely nominal award could not

suffice.

51. The Court considers that the finding of a breach of Article 6

(art. 6) constitutes in itself adequate just satisfaction in this respect.

D. Costs and expenses

52. Finally, Mr Langborger requested reimbursement of 104,000 SEK

in lawyer's fees and 13,475 SEK in general and travelling expenses.

As regards the first claim, the Government did not dispute the hourly

rate of 500 SEK, but considered excessive the total number of hours

(208) which Mr Grennberg was said to have devoted to preparing the

file. For his part, the Commission's Delegate stressed that much time

had been spent studying questions of secondary importance.

53. The Court notes that it has declared only one of the

applicant's complaints founded and, making an assessment on equitable

grounds, considers it appropriate to award the applicant, by way of

reimbursement of the fees in question, 50,000 SEK, to which should be

added 13,475 SEK in respect of general and travelling expenses.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT

1. Holds by seventeen votes to three that there has been a violation

of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;

2. Holds unanimously that there has been no violation of Articles 8

and 11 (art. 8, art. 11) of the Convention and of Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1);

3. Holds unanimously that it is not necessary to examine the case

also under Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention;

4. Holds by nineteen votes to one that the respondent State is to pay

to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses, the sum of 63,475

(sixty-three thousand four hundred and seventy-five) Swedish crowns;

5. Dismisses unanimously the remainder of the claim for just

satisfaction.

Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public hearing in

the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 22 June 1989.

Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL

President

Signed: Marc-André EISSEN

Registrar

In accordance with Article 51 para. 2 (art. 51-2) of the Convention and

Rule 52 para. 2 of the Rules of Court, the following separate opinions are

annexed to this judgment:

(a) dissenting opinion of Mr Pinheiro Farinha;

(b) dissenting opinion of Mr Pettiti and Mr Valticos;

(c) concurring opinion of Mr Martens.

Initialled: R. R.

Initialled: M.-A. E.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PINHEIRO FARINHA

(Translation)

1. In my view there has been no violation of Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1) of the Convention:

(a) The Housing and Tenancy Court is composed of lawyers,

generally judges, and lay assessors. All its members are appointed by

the Government for a term of office of three years (see paragraph 22

of the judgment).

The Court is always presided over by a lawyer (see paragraph 23) and,

if there is no majority, he has a casting vote.

The lay assessors, who are appointed by the Government on the

recommendation of the Swedish Federation of Property Owners and the

National Tenants' Union, represent the whole interest group (see

paragraph 24). They sit in a personal capacity and not as

representatives of their associations (see paragraph 19).

The proceedings are written but a hearing may be held if it is

necessary for the purposes of the investigation (see paragraph 23) and

the judgments are delivered in public. The court informed

Mr Langborger that it considered it possible to give its decision

without holding a hearing (see paragraph 15).

(b) It is common practice to provide for the participation of lay

judges having wide experience and extensive knowledge of the field in

which the dispute arises.

In this case the decisions could not go against the views of the

professional judges, so that the independence and impartiality of the

court were guaranteed.

It was open to Mr Langborger to request a public hearing.

2. Since I consider that there has been no violation, I cannot

vote for the award in this judgment of a sum in respect of costs and

expenses.

I would, however, have agreed with point 4 of the operative provisions

had I voted in favour of finding a violation.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES PETTITI AND VALTICOS

(Translation)

Contrary to the view taken by the majority, we do not think that it is

possible to find a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the

Convention in this case. Clearly it is a borderline case in terms of

conformity with the Convention, but one in which too inflexible a

position might fail to take account of the needs of the judiciary

arising from its dual role of seeking after justice and at the same

time maintaining social harmony.

Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) requires "an independent and impartial

tribunal".

The present case concerns organs composed partly of professional

judges and partly of lay assessors nominated by the Swedish Federation

of Property Owners and the National Tenants' Union. These lay

assessors must, it is stressed, sit in a personal capacity and not as

representatives of the organisations which nominated them.

The participation in a judicial body of persons nominated by the

interested parties is nowadays fairly common in various fields which

require specialised knowledge and experience. Apart from the

necessary expertise, this participation is aimed at gaining the

confidence of groups whose interests are opposed and at securing a

fair and balanced settlement of the disputes arising between them.

This approach is particularly relevant to industrial and social

conflicts.

Of course under Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) independence and impartiality

are required; it is therefore essential that the court in which the

persons nominated by the interested parties participate should also

include members satisfying this condition and having a decisive vote.

That is exactly what happened in the present case. The rent review

boards are composed of a chairman (a judge) and two lay assessors and

the Housing and Tenancy Court, a court in the strict sense, whose

composition varies, always has judges among its members - including

the president, who has a casting vote. In this case, the court was

composed of four members, two judges and two lay assessors. Moreover,

the latter are not appointed for a specific case, do not know in

advance to which files they will be assigned and take a judicial oath.

In any event, in this case no decision could be taken which went

against the views of the professional judges - even supposing that

there was agreement between the lay assessors.

In these circumstances, it cannot be found that there was ultimately a

failure to comply with the requirements of independence and

impartiality and, accordingly, a violation of Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1). The opposing view, as well as being unjustified, would

run the risk of entailing serious consequences and giving rise to

disputes concerning various courts composed partly of members

appointed from the relevant technical or professional fields, where an

individual chooses to contest the system. Such an approach would

scarcely be realistic.

CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE MARTENS

1. Although I share the opinion of the Court that in this case

there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1), I cannot

subscribe to its reasoning.

2. In the first place I fail to see why "it appears difficult to

dissociate the question of impartiality from that of independence"

(see paragraph 32 of the Court's judgment). I think, for various

reasons, that the Court should not have dealt with the independence

issue at all. One reason is that, before the Court, Mr Langborger has

not attacked or tried to refute the Commission's finding that there

was no reason to doubt the independence of the Housing and Tenancy

Court vis-à-vis the executive and the parties (see paragraphs 128 and

133 of the Commission's report). For a Court which is already

overburdened, that should, in my opinion, have been decisive.

3. Consequently I will confine myself to the question of

impartiality under the objective test.

Application of that test involves a double task. Firstly, it has to

be ascertained whether Mr Langborger had legitimate reasons to fear

that the chamber of the Housing and Tenancy Court which tried his case

lacked impartiality as a consequence of the presence in that chamber

of the two lay assessors. Secondly, it has to be assessed whether

these fears can be held objectively justified (see the Hauschildt

judgment of 24 May 1989, para. 48). This assessment will frequently

include a weighing of interests. This is because what is at stake is

often not only the confidence which the courts in a democratic society

must inspire in the parties, but also the interest in having a

judicial organisation that is rational and operates smoothly.

4. When applying the objective test, the Court found that

Mr Langborger could legitimately fear that the lay assessors had

a common interest contrary to his own and therefore that the balance of

interests, inherent in the Housing and Tenancy Court's composition in

other cases, was liable to be upset when it came to decide his own

claim (see paragraph 35 of the Court's judgment).

My objection to this approach is that it seems to imply that the Court

assumes that "in other cases" there is a "balance of interests".

The Court appears to base its reasoning on the assumption that it is

an essential feature of the Housing and Tenancy Court's composition

that the lay assessors are there to defend the interests of the

landlord or the tenant, respectively, with the result that they will

almost always take different sides - one endorsing the case of the

landlord and the other that of the tenant - and will thus create a

"balance of interests". If this assumption were correct, then the lay

assessors could hardly be considered impartial at all! There is,

however, no factual basis for the assumption: as the Swedish Supreme

Court has pointed out, the lay assessors should not feel bound by the

interests which they can be said to represent; they should carry out

their duties as independent judges and not as representatives of party

interests (see paragraph 24 of the European Court's judgment). There

is nothing in the file from which it could be inferred that the lay

assessors do not act accordingly.

5. In my view, there are better arguments for finding, under the

objective test, that the chamber of the Housing and Tenancy Court

lacked the necessary impartiality in the sense of Article 6

(art. 6) of the Convention.

6. As the Court has noted (see paragraph 33 of its judgment), the

proceedings instituted by Mr Langborger were aimed essentially at

release from the negotiation clause. He thus relied on section 2 of

the 1978 Act (see paragraph 16 of the Court's judgment), under which

an exemption can be granted from the compulsory system of collective

bargaining on rents and other tenancy conditions.

Under section 2 of the 1978 Act, those who seek exemption have to

satisfy the Housing and Tenancy Court that in the special

circumstances of their case it would be unreasonable to have the

negotiation clause inserted in their tenancy agreement. When applying

this provision, that court must, inter alia, weigh the interest in

adopting a rational approach to rent negotiations against the

fundamental need for the greatest possible contractual freedom for the

individual (see the travaux préparatoires and paragraph 16 of the

European Court's judgment). Both the wording and the drafting history

of section 2 of the 1978 Act make it clear that the Swedish

legislature intended that exemption from the compulsory system of

collective bargaining should be granted only exceptionally: the test

it laid down in section 2 is a narrow one and, moreover, leaves

considerable discretion to the Housing and Tenancy Court.

It is therefore quite understandable that those who invoke section 2

- especially if (like Mr Langborger) they do so not so much for

objective reasons but mainly because they simply cannot accept their

not being free to negotiate their own rent - will resent the fact that

the weighing of their interests against those of the system is

entrusted to a court some of whose members may be feared to be deeply

convinced of the system's benefits and, consequently, to be likely to

hold that its interests weigh very heavily indeed. This is all the

more so because those members form the majority if the court sits with

seven members, and at least an important minority if it sits with

four.

7. From this analysis of section 2 of the 1978 Act I conclude

that Mr Langborger had legitimate reasons to fear that the chamber of

the Housing and Tenancy Court which tried his claim for exemption from

the compulsory system of collective bargaining lacked impartiality as

a consequence of the presence in that chamber of the two lay

assessors.

As to whether those fears can be said to be objectively justified, I

would recall that in this context even appearances have a certain

importance: the very fact that section 2 makes it rather difficult to

obtain exemption renders it essential to exclude any doubt as to the

fairness of its application.

In this context I further note that there seems to be no good reason

for not having cases under section 2 tried by a special chamber of the

Housing and Tenancy Court, composed entirely, or having a strong

majority, of professional judges.

Taking these factors also into account, I come to the conclusion that

one can consider objectively justified Mr Langborger's fears that, as

a consequence of the presence of the two lay assessors, the chamber of

the Housing and Tenancy Court that tried his claim for exemption under

section 2 of the 1978 Act lacked the necessary impartiality. The fact

that this particular chamber also included two professional judges,

whose impartiality is not in question and who, as a consequence of the

President's having the casting vote, could form a majority, does not

change this view.

Like the Court, I therefore conclude that there has been a violation

of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).