COURT (PLENARY)
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF LANGBORGER v. SWEDEN
 
(Application no. 11179/84)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
22 June 1989

In the Langborger case[],
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:
- 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;
- for the Commission
 Sir Basil Hall,  Delegate;
- 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 apartment. 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

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 1
Outcome: no_violation