PROCEDURE

The case was brought before the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission“) on 13 March 1986, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 § 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated in an application (no. 10426/83) against the Kingdom of Sweden lodged with the Commission on 30 March 1983 under Article 25 (art. 25) by a Swedish citizen, Mr. Bengt Pudas. 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 purpose 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 Articles 6 § 1 and 13 (art. 6-1, art. 13).

In response to the inquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 § 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicant expressed the wish to take part in the proceedings before the Court and designated the lawyer who would represent him (Rule 30).

The Chamber of seven judges to be constituted included, as ex officio members, 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 § 3 (b)). On 19 March 1986, the President drew by lot, in the presence of the Registrar, the names of the five other members, namely Mr. J. Cremona, Mr. B. Walsh, Mr. R. Macdonald, Mr. C. Russo and Mr. J. Gersing (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 § 4) (art. 43). Mr. J. De Meyer, substitute judge, subsequently replaced Mr. Cremona, who was prevented from taking part in the consideration of the case (Rules 22 § 1 and 24 § 1).

Having assumed the office of President of the Chamber (Rule 21 § 5), Mr. Ryssdal consulted, through the Registrar, the Agent of the Swedish Government (“the Government“), the Delegate of the Commission and Mr. Pudas’ lawyer regarding the need for a written procedure (Rule 37 § 1). On 16 June 1986, he directed that the said Agent and lawyer should each be entitled to file a memorial by 16 August and that thereafter the Delegate should have one month to lodge a memorial in reply.

The Registrar received the applicant’s memorial on 6 August 1986. On 19 August, he received a letter dated 14 August from the Agent of the Government stating that they had nothing to add to the observations they had previously submitted to the Court in a letter of 11 April 1986. On 2 September, the Secretary to the Commission indicated that the Delegate did not intend to present any written observations.

On 26 February 1987, the President set 23 March down as the date for the opening of the oral proceedings, having first consulted, through the Registrar, the Agent of the Government, the Delegate of the Commission and the lawyer for the applicant (Rule 38).

The hearing was held in public at the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on the appointed day. Immediately before it opened, the Court had held a preparatory meeting. There appeared before the Court:

for the Government Mr. H. Corell, Ambassador, Under-Secretary for Legal and Consular Affairs, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Agent, Mr. P. Löfmarck, Under-Secretary for Legal Affairs, Ministry of Transport and Communications, Mr. H. Berglin, Legal Adviser, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Advisers;

for the Commission Mr. Gaukur Jörundsson, Delegate;

for the applicant Mr. G. Ravnsborg, Lecturer in Law at the University of Lund, Counsel. The Court heard addresses by Mr. Corell for the Government, by Mr. Gaukur Jörundsson for the Commission and by Mr. Ravnsborg for the applicant, as well as their replies to its questions.

AS TO THE FACTS

I. PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant, Mr. Bengt Pudas, is a Swedish citizen born in 1959. He lives at Hedenäset, which is situated in the Municipality of Övertorneå and the County of Norrbotten, in the North of Sweden.

On 1 February 1980, the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen) of Norrbotten granted him a taxi traffic licence, and, on 20 May, a licence to carry passengers and their goods on specified interurban routes (linjetrafik). The licences were expressed to be valid until further notice.

The applicant commenced his combined taxi and interurban traffic business on 20 May 1980. Two vehicles (a Peugeot 505 - mainly for the taxi traffic; and a seven-seater Citroën - mainly for the interurban traffic) were used in the business, which occupied the applicant, his father and a third driver on a part-time basis. By way of interurban traffic, the applicant offered a service of two journeys a week at scheduled times. This service was available on request and had to be ordered one day in advance.

A. County Traffic Company’s application to the County Administrative Board

On 2 April 1981, the County Traffic Company of Norrbotten (länstrafiken i Norrbotten AB) (see paragraph 20 below) filed an application with the County Administrative Board (see paragraph 19 below) for a licence to provide interurban transport on routes including those covered by Mr. Pudas’ second licence. The County Traffic Company at the same time requested that this licence be revoked, as well as a licence held since 1973 by a certain Mr. Wälimaa. In support of its application, the Company submitted that two traffic services in two different regions were to be united into one regular service with a single time-table, to be provided by the bus service business owned by Mr. Wälimaa and others. The applicant opposed the revocation of his licence.

B. Decision to revoke Mr. Pudas’ licence

On 17 August 1981, the County Administrative Board granted the County Traffic Company a licence, valid as from 1 September 1981, to provide interurban transport of passengers and goods on the routes indicated in its request. In another decision on the same day, the Board revoked the applicant’s and Mr. Wälimaa’s licences for interurban traffic, inter alia on the following grounds: “The plans for the future transport service offered by the County Company include a regular bus service which is to be created between the places in question. Such a plan will, in the opinion of the Board, enable a better network of routes to be created for the area and transport to be co-ordinated in one route. Bearing this in mind, it is the opinion of the Board that the transport service in the area will be improved in such a way that the licence applied for by the County Company cannot be refused. Consequently, the former licences, issued to (the applicant) and Mr. Wälimaa, shall be revoked.“ By virtue of a subsequent order, Mr. Pudas’ licence was to cease to be valid as from the date on which the revocation of 17 August became final. Shortly thereafter, the County Traffic Company contracted out to the company owned by Mr. Wälimaa and others the running of a bus service on the routes covered by its new licence.

C. Appeals by Mr. Pudas against the revocation of his licence

The applicant lodged an appeal with the Board of Transport (transportrådet), in which he alleged, inter alia, the following. The County Traffic Company’s application for a licence for the routes covered by his licence had been motivated not by any public interest in improving the transport service, but by an arrangement between the Company and Mr. Wälimaa (see paragraphs 11 and 12 above). Only very serious reasons, such as misconduct of the licence-holder, could justify revocation. When revoking his licence, the County Administrative Board had failed to take due account of his interests. Finally, the transport service on the routes concerned was not likely to be improved simply by being carried out by Mr. Wälimaa and others instead of by himself. The Board of Transport rejected the appeal on 14 May 1982.

Mr. Pudas thereupon lodged a further appeal with the Government (Ministry of Transport and Communications), in which he referred to his arguments submitted to the Board of Transport.

The Government dismissed the appeal on 21 October 1982. In response to a further request from the applicant, the Government declined, on 13 January 1983, to review their previous decision.