(TRAAISLATlON, i THE FACTS The facts of the case, as stated by the parties, may be sunimarised as follows . The applicsnt, a Swedish national, born in 1922, is a consulting engineer and resides at Solna, a town adjacept to Stockholm . He is represented by Mr . Bertil Grennberg, a patents agent, resident in ]Uppsala . The applicant is the tenant of a sèK-roomed ilat (119 m') in -arented block belonl;ing to Mi . Busk Erik Joliansson . The tenaricy agreement, enterecl into on 1 October 1982 between the applicant and the landlord, contains a clause providing that the ainoum of the rent shall loe determined by negoiiation between the tenants' union "Hyresgdstfdreningen i Stor-SU>ckholm" and the landlords' union "Stockholms Fastighetsügarefbrening" . An agreentent between these two unions regulates the negotiations . The tenants' union receives a commission paid by the landlord in propcrtion to the amonnt of rent agreed by the two unions, and amounting at present to 0 .3% of the rent . Etefore describing the proceedings which form the subject matter of this application, a short description of the market for rented accommodation in Sw-den and the relevant Swedish legislntion is set out below . 1. Alarket for rented accommcdatton and relevmtt legislatio a a . History of the marlcet for rented accommodatio n Owiug to the increase in the urban population a considerable number of buildings were erected in the years following the 1890s . The older buildings generally belonged to individuals but the owners of modern buildings included bodies whose capital wes provided from public sources . Most of the accommodation was rented At the end of the First World War rents increased steeily . To cornpensate for the economic inequality existing on the free market beeween tenants and landlords the first Rent Boards (hyresndmnder) were established in 1917 . These boa;-ds were composed of representatives of the tenants and the landiords and presided over by a lawyer . The boards could act as media¢ors and decide disputes on the arnouut of rent. 7'his system was abolished :n 1923 with the return of free market principles . Strict eeonomic tneasures were taken during the Second World War iacluding a price freeze and the passing of a Rent Control Act (la .g om k,yresreglering) (Act No. 429 of 1942) . In principle, rents were fixed at the level existing at that date . The Rent Boards were re-established . Some accommodation ceased to correspond to its true market value : Although collateral economic arrangements were forbadden by law they nevertheless occuried. It was therefore decided in the seventies to repeal the 1942 Act withouf howeer returning to the free tnarket in order not to atimulate a steep increase n rents. 217 b. Negotiation of rents Section 1 of the Rent Negotiation Act (Act No . 304 of 1978) (hyresf8rhandlingslagen) provides that conditions for tenancies shall be negotiated between a landlord or a landlord and a landlords' organisation on the one hand, anda tenants' organisation on the other. The negotiation procedure is agreed on by the parties or ; fixed by a Rent Board . If a tenancy agreement contains a negotiation clause (f&rhandlingsklausul) the tenant must accept the provisions agreed between the' parties . A dispute as to the maintenance or adoption of a negotiation clause may be submitted to a Rent Board . Section 2 of the 1978 Act provides that a negotiation clause shall be adopted or retained if this is not unreasonable, having regard to the tenant' slivingconditionsortheopinionofothertenantsafectedbytheclause . The following circumstances inay entitle to exemption from the obligation to accept a negotiation clause : - the special features of the accommodation ; - the negotiation system may apply to only part of the accominodation, concerned ; - the personal relationship between the landlord and the tenant ; - negotiations failing to coinply with the 1978 Act ; - excessive remuneration of the tenants' organisation . Under the 1978 Act, it may be decided in the negotiations that the rent shall include a sum to remunerate the tenants' organisation for the part it plays in the negotiations . The system for negotiating rent should in principle apply to one or' several buildings . At present it applies to all accommodation owned by public organisations and 80% of buildings comprising more than two flats (flerfamiljshus) in private ownership. . c. Rent Boards Under Section 4 of the Lease Committees and Rent Boards Act (Act No . 18 8of1973)(lagomarendenamnderochyresnaznder)theRentBoardshearand , determine disputes relating to rent in accordance with the provisions of Part 12 of, the Law of Real Property Act (jordabalken) ; they also determine disputes relating to the application of the Rent Negotiation Act and other Acts . The Boards also act as mediators . There are 12 Rent Boards in Sweden . In 1984, they heard 31,194 cases, and 8,731 cases were pending at the end of the year . Each Board is composed of a lawyer, who acts as president, and two assessors, one of whom must be familiar with the problems of administering residential accommodation or buildings with owner-occupied flats . The9ther assessor must be familiar with the conditions affect -ingthetenantsorowner-ocupiers(bostadsrdtshavare) . The non-legal members are appointed by the National Courts Administration (domstolsverket) from person s 218 nominated by the organisations concerned with the accominodation market (principall), the Naticnal Union of Landlords and the Navonal Unior of Tenants) . Tttese members are deemed to act in their personal capacity and not as representatives of their unions. The proceedings are, in principle, oral (Section 9 of the Aci-) . The investigation may include an irspection of the accommodation and the hearing on oath of wimesses or experts (Sections 17-19 (a)) . The pi-ocedure for the hearing of wimesses is prescribed by the Judicial Proceclure Act (rdttegvangsbalken). The reasons must be given for the decisions (Section 21) . In principle the decision is given on tfe day of the hearing or at the latest two weeks afterwards . 'rhe parties are informed at the hearing of the date on which the decision will be given . A copy is sent to the parties within seven day s if the decision is given at the hearng . The Boards are no1 deemed to be courts but have the status of administrative autb.orities in Sweden. However the provisions of the Judicial Procedure Act governing votes, challenges and the publicity of the proceedings and decisions apply to theni (Seetions 20, 27 and 28) . The Boarda apply othzr provisions of the Judicial Procedure P .ct by aialogy, in particular those relating to ordinary actions (dispositiva tvisteinâl) . In other cases the general provisions of the AdministrativeAct (Act No . 290 o1' 1971) (fdrvaltnir.gslagen) apply. cl. House and Tenancy Court Ilnlike the Rent Boards, the: House and Tenancy C'ourt is a court . The House and Tenancy Court Act (Act No . 1081 of 1974) (Iagen oin bostadsdomstol) provides that the Court shall determine apaeals lodged against the decisions of the Boards in the ca,es prescribed by the Act . Vo appeal lies frorn the decision of the House and Tenancy Court (Section 31 . Under Section 5 the Court is composed of' at least 3 lawyers, a technically qualified assessor ("technicat assessor") and, at niost, 12 members with special knowle9ge of the state of the accommodation market (the "interests" assessors). The members are appointed by the Government. The lawyers and the technical assessor nrust not be aploointed from among persons who might be considered as re3resenting the interests of the landlords or the tenants (Saction 7) . The "interests" assessors are appointed by the swne crganisations as appoint the members of the Boards . All metnbers take the judicial oath . Thei-e is a quomm of 7 menibers, but 4 suffices iE none of the members insists on 7 being preseut (Section 12) . When 7 members sit 3 cf them must be lawyers and 4°inierests" assessors (2 with experiencein administering rentedproperty and 2 f•amlliar with the simation of te.nants). When the rluorum is 4, 2 shallbe lawyers and 2 "interests" assessors . In some cases the technical assessor takes the place of one of the, lawyers . The president is always a lawyer (Sections 13-15) . The general provisions of the Judicial Procedure Act apply and in principle the House and Tenancy Court follows the same procedure as an orclinary appeal court . In Ihis field, the House and 'Tenancy C'ourt decides at last instance . The proceedings are, in 219 principle, written, but where necessary a hearing may bc held . The judgments are' delivered as early as possible, at a hearing or made available to interested parties in the registry. In this case a copy is sent to the parties through the post .I . Procedure followed in the instant case a. The Rent Board The applicant, who was dissatisfied with the amount of the rent and by the fact that he was represented by the tenants' union gave notice to terminate his tenancy by registered letter of 15 June 1983 and suggested a new contract providing for afixedrent . This suggestion was rejected and on 23 June 1983 the applicant referred the : dispute to the Rent Board(hyresnümnden) which was the competent body . The applicant first challenged two non-legal members of the Board, i .e. the representatives of the landlords' union and the tenants' union . He considered that neither of these bodies was in a position to judge the dispute objectively and impartially since the . subject-matter affected the raison d'@tre of the two unions which drew their resource sfromthesumspaidforentnegotiation . He drew attention to a risk of discriminatio n for political motives by the tenants' union, which had socialist leanings, because he . was a county councillor (landstingsman) elected to represent the moderate eentreright party (moderata samlingpartiet) . The applicant also insisted on the deletion of~ the negotiation clause in his contract and objected to the amount of the rent .TheRentBoardconsideredthecaseatitshearingof17November1983. The lawyer, president of the Board, rejected the challenge, giving his decision immediately, for the following reasons : under Section 5 of the 1973 Lease Committees and Rent Boards Act the Board was composed of a member versed in the administration - of rented residential property and a member familiar with the situation of the tenants . In the instant case the members were appointed by the National Courts Administration on proposals by the National Union of Landlords and the National Union of' . Tenants. This fact alone could not constitute a ground for challenge . The Board then, heard the parties. After the hearing the president told the parties that the decision' would be placed at their disposal in the Board's office on 1 December 1983 . Th eaplicantreceivedacopyofthedecisionbyordinarypost . b. The House and Tenancy Cour t The applicant appealed to the House and Tenancy Court (bostadsdomstolen) relying on Articles 6, 11 and 13 of the Convention . He argued that the Court, as .the highést national competent authority, was the national authority within the meaning of Article 13 . He called for a thorough examination of the challenge raised in the first instance proceedings . He also challenged any assessors'of the Court who might . represent the landlords' and tenants' unions . On the merits he reiterated his request not to be represented by the tenants' union and asked to be permitted to fix his ren tbyanindividualcontract . 220 r By a letter of 28 Decetnber-t983, the Court inf'ormad the applicant that it was in a position to give judgment on an examination of thefile without â heatring . On 23 February 1984 . one of the judges on the Court rejected the challenge directed against the °intereeas" assessors of the Cocrt in a separate decision which it appears from tlte record was to be communicated on 2 April 1984 . This decision states that the fact that the two assessors were connected with tlte unions on whose proposal they had been noniinatei could not constimte a ground for challenge . The Court, composed of two lawyers and two "interestct" assessors, sat in i private in the absence of the parties and gave its decision on 2 April 1984 . The Court confrrrned the decision of the Reni Board. The applicant receivecl a photocopy of the I decisicn dismissing his appeal by ordinary post . As thisdecision referred to anoilher decisian of the Court "of the same day" rejecting the challenge, the applicant asked the Ceurt for information on this decision. He then received on 17 April 1984 a photocopy of that decision given on 23 February 1984 . COMPLAINTS The applicant's complaints may be summarised as follows . The applicaat complains that his case was not publicly heard by an independent and impartial tribunal within the tneaning of Article 6 para . I o F the Convention . It was daubtful whether the Rent Board was in fact a ceurt . In its decision of 7 October 1983 the Malmd Rent Board expressly stated the cantrary . In the instant case the Board had ntade its decision whea constiruted in a munner wntrary to Article 6 as it did not ensure the required independence and impanialiiy . The House and Tenancy Court aould, according to all appearances, be considered as a°i :ribunal" within the meaning of Article 6 but it had not heard the applicant's case in accordance with that provision . Nor did it satisfy the requirements of independence and impartiality . 'Dne of the assessors, blrs . Mdrta Kgremo, was not only appointed ori theproposal of'the tenants' union but was everi one of its employees (representative, "ombudsman") . The Court's decision was not given at a public hearing and was moreover only notified to the applicant in an incomplete version . In fact the deeision-of 23 Febntary 1984 on the ehallvnge was only eemmunicated later, after being called forby the applicant . This decision was given by a single judge which was ~.,ontrary to law . The applicant complains of the violation of his right to respect for his private and fatnily life and his home, guaranteed by Article 8 para . 1 of the Convention . The contractual rightc and obligations relatirtg to the ilat which was his hotne were themselves an inlegral part of his home . The practically obliga[ory intervention of a union which possessed a monopoly in the relationship between a tenant and a landlord amounted to an inf'ringement of the rights guaranteed by Article 8 para . 1 and this-infringeinent could not be justified under Article 8 para 2 . 221 The applicant complains of a violation of his right to freedom of associatiom guaranteed by Article 11 para . 1 of the Convention. This freedotn included the right not to be tyrannised by unions which one does not wish to join . There was no objec-' tion to a dominant wage earners' union making a collective agreement on the wages of its members and so at the same time fixing the wages for non-member wage earners. A similar arrangement could not be accepted for rents where there were numerous factors to be taken into account, such as the state of the accommodation, . ease of access to public transport, the site etc ., not to mention questions of taste. Th eobligatorytransferofthetenant'srightnegotiationtoamonopolyunionwhenit was a matter of letting of such varied premises was an infringement of the right to freedom of association which could not be justified under Article 11 para . 2. The applicant complains of a violation of his right to an effective remedy before the national authority, guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention . He complains of violations of the Convention before the two authorities which dealt with the case an dthatheHouseandTenancyCourt,thehighestdomesticauthority,deliberatelyfaile dinitsdutybyrefusingtoremedyviolationsoftheConvention . The applicant was ,therefore,withoutanefectiveremedy . The applicant complains of a violation of his right to respect for his possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No . 1 . He considers that the fact that the legislature gives a private organisation the right to lay its hands on the applicant's nioney amounts to a violation of the right of ownership . THE LAW I . The applicant complains that his case was not heard by an independent and . impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 para . 1 of the Convention which provides : "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations . . . . everyone is entitled to a hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal . " In substance the Government argue as follows : the bodies which made the decision in the instant case and which apply a large number of the provisions ; applicable in the ordinary courts are tribunals within the meaning of this provision . There can be no doubt as to their independence . The objection that these bodies are not impartial relates to the "interests" assessors . These assessors are drawn from the professional organisations in the relevant field of activity ; they are appointed for a fixed time and are deemed to act as independent judges . They are subject to the provisions for challenging judges . The applicant argues that the Rent Board is not a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6. The Rent Board and the House and Tenancy Court are not independent , 222 with regard to the parties because they include the "interasts" assessors . A relationship exists between independence and impartiality, the first being intended to guarantee the second . In the instant case rhe applicant was certain of finding adversaries in both bodies which eould not be considered to be impartial . - The Commission finds that the case related to civil rights and obligations . The applicant was therefore entitled to a public hearing by ar. independerit and impartial tribuned . The case-law of the organs of the Convention has evolved a number of criteria for deciding on the independence and impartiality of a tribunal . An independent tribunal is a body which, apart from its judicial function, satisfies certain requirr.ments : independencae of the execu[ive and of the parties, niethod of appointment, composition, period of office, absence of instructions and guarantees against external pressure, type of procedure followed (cf. Eur. Court H . R. Le Compte, Van Leuven atid De ]vleyere judgment of 23 June 1981 , Series A rio . 43, para. 55) . ka the instant case the first i .nstance authority, the Rent Board ; is regarded as an administrative authority in Swedish law . That, however, is not decisive for the interpretation of Article 6 . On the other ltand it is not disputed that the bocly which determined the case on appeal, the House and Tenancy Court is a court under Swedish law and that it offers judicial gaarantees . The Commission observes that according to its case-law nothing prevents that the determinatims relating to civil rights and obligations withir, the sense of Article 6 are first submitted to bodies wlhich do not in all respects satisfy the requirenients of that Article (cf . above-mentioned judgment, para. 51). It must, therefore, be considered whether the applicant was in ~ the end entitled to havc his case heard by a bodÿ satisfying the requirements of a "trib¢ial" within the meaning ol Article 6 . The fact that the Rent Board and the House end Tenancy Court were mixed bodies made up of professional jtulges and assessora recruited in the representative profesiiorial organisations, taken together with the nature of the dispute in the instant case, raises a problem with regard to the impartiality of these bodies . 7'o ciecide whether a tribunal is impartial bot:i a subjective and an objective i approe.ch must be adopted. Personal impartiality is presumed until the contrary is proved . The applicant has not made any criticissns in this connection . As. regards objective impartiality account must be taken of funetional and organic considerations . Th~e orgais of the Convention have noted that even appearances may be of importance in thi ; connection (cf. Eur. Court H . R. ; Piérsackjudgmént'of 1 October 1982, Series A no . 53, para. 30) . The presence oP oni or mare judges who inay reasonabb3 be feared notte be impartial can raise problems . The applicant unsuccessfully challenged the "interests" assessors . He considered that these menrbers were riot impartial on the groul that they were dedicated to the interests of their respective unions . The Commission considérs that the applicant's omplaints based on the absence of a trial by ar independent and impartial tribunal raise problems s¢FHcientl y 223 complex and important for their solution to call for an examination of the merits of' the case and therefore these complaints cannotbe declared manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para . 2 of the Convention .2 . The applicant complains that his case was not given a public hearing by a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention which provides inter alia that : "everyone shall be entitled to a public hearing by a tribunal . Judgment shall be pronounced publicly . . ." . The Government argue that there was a public hearing before the Rent Board ' and that the applicant was entitled to apply to the House and Tenancy Court to fiv a hearing . Furthermore the decisions of both bodies were made public in their' respective registries, and according to case-law the requirements of Article 6 were satisfied when the decision was brought to the knowledge of the public at the Court' sregistry . Finally the Government consider that the complaints based on Article 6 , were manifestly ill-founded . The applicant argues that his right to a public hearing was violated : he did not have a hearing before the appeal court and the decisions of the two bodies were not ; pronounced in public . The Commission notes that a public hearing was held at first instance before : the Rent Board . However the applicant contests that this body can be considered as a tribunal . On the other hand th ere was no public hearing in thé House and Tenancy Court but in this conuection it must be noted that the applicant failed to apply for such a hearing. He pointed out that the appeal court had informed him that it was in a position to give its decision from the information on the file without holding a, public hearing . Furthermore it seems that the decisions of the Rent Board and the House an d Tenancy Court were not given at a public hearing but made available to the parties• and the public at the registries of those bodies .TheCommissionconsidersthattheprocedurefollowedintheinstantcase ~ raises problems with regard to the requirement of publicity as prescribed in Article 6. It follows that the applicant's complaints concerning the absence of publicity ; cannot be considered as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para . 2 of the Convention . 3. The Commission notes that the applicant has also put forward complaints based' on Articles 8, 11 and 13 of the Convention and Article I of Protocol No. 1 . These, complaints are closely bound up with those which have just been examined and are, based on the same set of facts . They must,therefore be treated in the same wayas; the rest of the application . . , ' For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE without prejudging the merits . 224