Sätterlund v. Sweden



Application No. 30157/96

by Sven SÄTTERLUND

against Sweden

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 9 July 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs. G.H. THUNE, President

MM. J.-C. GEUS

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

A. ARABADJIEV

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 11 December 1995

by Sven SÄTTERLUND against Sweden and registered on 9 February 1996

under file No. 30157/96;

Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent

Government on 27 May 1997 and the observations in reply submitted by

the applicant on 19 June 1997;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, a Swedish citizen born in 1957, resides in Råda.

Before the Commission he is represented by Mr. Carl-Gustaf Elwe, a

lawyer practising in Karlskoga.

In 1994 the applicant instituted court proceedings against the

mother of his son, claiming extended access to the son. By judgment

of 8 February 1995, the District Court (tingsrätten) of Sunne awarded

the applicant only limited access. In so deciding, the court relied,

inter alia, on two reports from the Social Council (socialnämnden) of

Hagfors. The first report, dated 11 April 1994, had been prepared by

Ann-Christine Månsson, who had worked as a substitute social welfare

officer at the Social Council until 24 July 1994. On 28 June 1995,

upon the applicant's appeal, the Court of Appeal (hovrätten) for

Western Sweden upheld the District Court's judgment. The appellate

court was composed of five members, including the lay assessor

(nämndeman) Ann-Christine Månsson.

The applicant claims that the lay assessor Ann-Christine Månsson

cannot be considered as impartial due to her previous involvement in

the case. He invokes Article 6 of the Convention.

On 15 January 1997 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided to

communicate the application to the respondent Government pursuant to

Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.

By letter of 27 May 1997, the Government informed the Commission

that a friendly settlement agreement had been reached between the

parties. The terms of the agreement are as follows:

(Translation)

"1. The Government will pay [the applicant] compensation

of 45,000 Swedish crowns (SEK), of which 30,000 in non-

pecuniary damage and 15,000 for legal costs. ...

2 [The applicant] declares that, after receiving the

amount under 1 above, he has no further claims on the

Swedish State based on the circumstances covered by his

application to the Commission.

3 The parties agree that [the applicant's] application

to the Commission may be struck out of the Commission's

list of cases."

The agreement was signed by the Government's representative on

25 April 1997 and by the applicant on 29 April. It was approved by the

Government by decision of 15 May.

By letter of 19 June 1997, the applicant informed the Commission

that he had received the above compensation amount and stated that,

accordingly, the case may be struck out of the Commission's list of

cases.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Having regard to Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, the

Commission finds that the matter has been resolved. Furthermore, in

accordance with Article 30 para. 1 in fine, the Commission finds no

circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the

Convention which require the continuation of the examination of the

application.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.

M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE

Secretary President

to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber