Nissen v Sweden (decision), 11 July 1988 [ECtHR]

Case no 11707/85

The applicant complains of being a victim of discrimination, in that he and his associates in ROYSTAXI and no one from MTEA were prosecuted and convicted for offences allegedly committed by the taxi owners, who were members of MTEA, since the licences granted to MTEA members were illegal. He also complains of being the victim of discrimination as he was prosecuted for having committed offences under the 1979 Ordinance, while the officials of the County Administrative Board were not prosecuted, although they had violated the Ordinance in other respects. The applicant submits that he has also, as a result of the prosecution and conviction, been a victim of a breach of his right to negative freedom of association. He invokes Articles 11 and 14 (Art. 11, Art. 14) of the Convention.

The Commission notes that the applicant's complaint is primarily directed against his prosecution and subsequent conviction by the District Court as upheld by the Court of Appeal and finally by the Supreme Court on 16 January 1985. The Commission observes that the Swedish courts, which convicted the applicant for violation of the Ordinance on Commercial Transportation, had no competence to decide on anything but the criminal charge against the applicant. They were not competent to pronounce any opinion on whether other persons had committed similar offences, whether the applicant ought to have been granted a licence to operate at Sturup Airport or whether he had been discriminated against as a result of the granting of licences to other taxi drivers or in any other respect.

The Commission here recalls that there is no right under the Convention to have criminal proceedings instituted by the State against other persons.

The Commission notes that the applicant's conviction was based on the fact that he did not have the requisite licence to operate traffic at Sturup Airport. There is no indication that the prosecution and conviction of the applicant for having illegally operated taxi traffic at Sturup Airport were as such based on his membership in ROYSTAXI or on his not being a member of MTEA. The applicant's complaint of discrimination against him as compared to the officials of the County Administrative Board is wholly unfounded. The applicant's allegation that Swedish law has been violated by granting the exemption to MTEA members is unsubstantiated.

 Accordingly, there is no appearance of a violation of the applicant's right to freedom of association under Article 11 (Art. 11) or of the prohibition of discrimination in Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention.

It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

Submit Information



Enter Keyword

Select one or several topic(s)



Compulsion to join Business associations Economic objectives Hunting associations Pension funds Restrictions Criminal convictions Non-nationals Public officials Disclosure of member's name Deportation Discriminatory treatment Failure to promote Transfer