PROCEDURE

The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission“) on 19 February 1993, within the three-month period laid down in Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated in an application (no. 14220/88) against the Kingdom of Sweden lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by a Swedish national, Mr Göran Ravnsborg, on 2 July 1988. 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 as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).

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. The President granted him leave to present his own case (Rule 30).

The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Mrs E. Palm, 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 27 February 1993 the Vice-President, Mr R. Bernhardt, drew by lot, in the presence of the Registrar, the names of the other seven members, namely Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson, Mr F. Gölcüklü, Mr F. Matscher, Mr A. N Loizou, Sir John Freeland, Mr J. Makarczyk and Mr D. Gotchev (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43).

As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 5), Mr Ryssdal, through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the Swedish Government (“the Government“), the applicant and the Delegate of the Commission on the organisation of the proceedings (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38). Pursuant to the order made in consequence, the Registrar received the Government’s memorial on 23 July 1993 and the applicant’s memorial on 23 August. On 17 September the Secretary to the Commission informed the Registrar that the Delegate did not intend to file a memorial in reply. On 5 and 15 October 1993 the Commission produced a number of documents, as requested by the Registrar on the President’s instructions, and the applicant submitted his claims under Article 50 (art. 50).

In accordance with the President’s decision, the hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 25 October 1993. The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand. There appeared before the Court:

for the Government Ms E. Jagander, Legal Adviser, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Agent, Ms C. Renfors, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Justice, Adviser;

for the Commission Mr Gaukur Jörundsson, Delegate;

the applicant Mr G. Ravnsborg. The Court heard addresses by Ms Jagander, Mr Gaukur Jörundsson and Mr Ravnsborg.

AS TO THE FACTS

I. THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

A. Introduction

Mr Göran Ravnsborg, a university lecturer in law, is a Swedish citizen and lives in Lund in Sweden.

From late 1981 the applicant held a power of attorney from his adoptive mother, Mrs Karin Schieck, and, on 19 November 1982, he was appointed administrator (god man) for her friend, Mrs Marie Åkerblom. As both Mrs Schieck and Mrs Åkerblom became unable to care for themselves because of their advanced age, they were placed in a nursing home by the Municipality of Göteborg. The nursing home charged them for medical care and the applicant effected the relevant payments. When he subsequently realised that the nursing home was a charitable association, he stopped paying the fees on the ground that the institution in question was not entitled to charge them. A dispute arose between the applicant and the nursing home and the latter brought a court action.

On 6 April 1987, while the above-mentioned proceedings were pending, the Board of the Principal Guardian (Överförmyndarnämnden - “the Board“) in Göteborg asked the District Court (tingsrätten) in the same town to appoint an administrator for Mrs Schieck. The applicant, on his own and Mrs Schieck’s behalf, filed a counter-claim and sought the immediate dismissal of the members of the Board. Referring to Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, he asked for a public hearing.

On three occasions in the course of the ensuing proceedings the applicant was ordered by the relevant courts, under Chapter 9, Article 5, of the Code of Judicial Procedure (rättegångsbalken; see paragraphs 19-20 below), to pay fines for improper (otillbörliga) statements made in his written observations. The orders were made in the form of decisions (beslut). He appears to have paid the fines.

B. The first fine

In his written observations of 4 May 1987 to the District Court he stated, inter alia, that the Board could be described as “a basket of municipal rotten eggs of different colours with a common denominator and overriding ideology, namely fascism“. Accordingly, the rights and legitimate interests of individuals within the municipality - if these were taken into account at all, so intoxicated were the authorities with power - were never given proper consideration amounting to an effective examination of the needs of the community. As a result, such needs were defined by so-called democratically elected “peoples’ courts“ - officially named “boards“ and “councils“ of the municipality of Göteborg - the members of which “consist[ed] to a surprising degree of the local public mob“ or “pure rotten eggs“.

The District Court, considering the applicant’s statements “improper“ within the meaning of Chapter 9, Article 5, of the Code of Judicial Procedure, ordered him, at a sitting on 18 May 1987, to pay a fine of 1,000 Swedish kronor. It did not hold a hearing and adjourned its examination of the merits of the case (see paragraph 15 below).

C. The second fine

On 1 June 1987 the applicant appealed from the above decision to the Court of Appeal for Western Sweden (Hovrätten för Västra Sverige). He asked for an oral hearing and complained of not having had the possibility to defend himself orally before the District Court. In his written observations, the applicant informed the Court of Appeal that, should it refuse his demands, he intended to lodge a further appeal (presumably to the Supreme Court) in order to bring his case to the Commission in Strasbourg or to the Human Rights Committee in Geneva. He expressed the opinion that the likelihood of his being granted leave to appeal was very small in view of the “generally lethargic[,]... lax and allergic attitude of the final instance“, which resulted from the “anti-human rights indoctrination received by its members during their many years’ service in public administration“.

On 4 November 1987, without holding an oral hearing, the Court of Appeal confirmed the District Court’s decision and ordered the applicant to pay a further fine of 1,000 kronor, finding that his written observations of 1 June 1987 also contained improper remarks prejudicing the good order of court proceedings.

The applicant then applied to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal, alleging that the lower and appellate courts had not only denied him a fair trial but had also violated his right to freedom of expression. Such leave was refused on 5 January 1988.

D. The third fine

In the meantime, on 17 June 1987, the District Court, without holding a hearing, accepted the applicant’s and Mrs Schieck’s objection against the Board’s request for the appointment of an administrator, but rejected their demand for the dismissal of the members of the Board (see paragraph 8 above).

On 2 July 1987 the applicant, on his own and Mrs Schieck’s behalf, lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal, seeking to have the case referred back to the District Court for reconsideration, as well as an oral hearing before the lower court. On this occasion, he asked that his case be heard by a specially composed District Court as he wished to have certain members disqualified from sitting. He alleged that one of its members, whom he named, had a “far-reaching tendentiously fascist way of presiding“ over the court and was “grossly partial in favour of municipal interests, collegiate corruption and abuse of public power through high-handedness, terror and reactionary principles“. When composed of the said judge and certain other members, who were also mentioned by name, the District Court had been generally autocratic and had applied the law in a manner which had been heavily in favour of the municipal authorities. On 4 November 1987, in a separate decision from the one mentioned in paragraph 13 above, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal. In addition, it again ordered the applicant to pay 1,000 kronor for improper remarks in his appeal. It did not hold a hearing.

The applicant, on his own behalf and on that of Mrs Schieck’s estate (the latter had died on 7 July 1987), applied to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal, which was refused on 5 January 1988 (in a different decision from that referred to in paragraph 14 above).