BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 21623/09
TU & CO AB
against Sweden
lodged on 16 April 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant, TU & Co AB, is a Swedish limited liability company, which has its seat in Stockholm. The applicant was represented before the Court by Mr T. Bodström, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.

A.  The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant runs the restaurant Undici Restaurant & Bar (Undici) in the centre of Stockholm. On 27 September 2007, the Municipal Authority decided to withdraw Undici’s licence to serve alcoholic beverages on its premises. The decision was based partly on several reports from the Police Authority regarding disorder and excessive serving of alcohol on the premises, partly on the circumstance that the restaurant had served liquor by the bottle after 1 a.m. (which was prohibited) and partly on the failure to report to the authorities when one of the shareholders (another company) was subject to liquidation as well as to report changes in the ownership structure of the company.

The applicant appealed against the decision and asked to have its alcohol licence back. On 7 November 2007, the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) in Stockholm, after an oral hearing of the case, granted the applicant’s appeal in such way that the intervention was limited to a warning.

The Municipal Authority appealed against the decision to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) in Stockholm. The applicant, as well as the Municipal Authority, requested an oral hearing before the appellate court. The applicant asked to hear six witnesses, of whom three would be heard in person before the court. One of the witnesses, an advocate, had not been heard before the County Administrative Court and he was to testify that there was no reason to withdraw the applicant’s alcohol licence with reference to the changes in the ownership structure or the liquidation of the main shareholder.

In a separate decision on 18 June 2008, the Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s request for an oral hearing as such hearing was considered unnecessary. The applicant was given until 14 July 2008 to complete its application in writing.

On 15 October 2008, the Administrative Court of Appeal repealed the County Administrative Court’s decision and ruled in favour of the Municipal Authority. The decision was based on the fact that changes in the ownership structure and the shareholder’s liquidation had not been reported to the relevant authority. Additionally, it was noted that a waitress, on 8 March 2008, had left a pitcher of liquor on a table for guests at the restaurant after 1. a.m. The Administrative Court of Appeal, referring to the fact that the applicant had previously received warnings with regard to its service of alcoholic beverages, did not find any specific reasons to limit the intervention to a warning.

On 24 October 2008, the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) refused leave to appeal.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the lack of an oral hearing before the Administrative Court of Appeal was in violation of its right to a fair trial. The applicant claims that an oral hearing, in order to hear witnesses, could have provided information of relevance to the determination of the case.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Was the lack of an oral hearing before the Swedish Administrative Court of Appeal compatible with the applicant’s right to a public hearing as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?