AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 12694/87
                      by S.
                      against Sweden


        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 7 October 1988, the following members being present:

              MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President
                  J. A. FROWEIN
                  S. TRECHSEL
                  F. ERMACORA
                  G. SPERDUTI
                  E. BUSUTTIL
                  G. JÖRUNDSSON
                  A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
                  A. WEITZEL
                  J.-C. SOYER
                  H. G. SCHERMERS
                  H. DANELIUS
                  G. BATLINER
                  J. CAMPINOS
                  H. VANDENBERGHE
             Mrs.  G. H. THUNE
             Sir  Basil HALL
             MM.  F. MARTINEZ
                  C. L. ROZAKIS
             Mrs.  J. LIDDY

             Mr.  H.C. KRÜGER Secretary to the Commission

        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

        Having regard to the application introduced on
15 September 1986 by Agne Hubert STENE against Sweden and registered
on 21 January 1987 under file No. 12694/87;

        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

        Having deliberated;

        Decides as follows:


THE FACTS

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

        The applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1928.  He is an
unskilled worker and states that he resides at Kyrkhult in the
municipality of Olofström, Sweden.

        The applicant owns a piece of property in the municipality of
Olofström.  However, due to his profession he often changes his de
facto place of residence in order to find jobs.  He has, however,
always considered his property at Olofström as his home.

        In 1980 the applicant, his wife and his daughter were
considered resident (mantalsskriven) at Olofström.  However, it appears
that the municipality of Oskarshamn complained to the County
Administrative Court (länsrätten) of Kalmar maintaining that the
applicant and his family should be considered resident there.  After
obtaining statements from the parties involved the County
Administrative Court, in its decision of 19 May 1981, found in favour
of the municipality of Oskarshamn.  It does not appear that the
applicant appealed against this decision and he has been considered
resident there ever since.

        When the local tax authorities, for the year 1985, again
considered the applicant resident at Oskarshamn the applicant lodged a
complaint with the County Administrative Court maintaining that his
home was at Kyrkhult in the municipality of Olofström where he owned a
piece of property and where he resided as often as his work situation
would allow.  The Court obtained statements from the parties involved
and in its judgment of 17 September 1985 it stated as follows:

"A person who due to his work situation spends the night in a
place different from that where his family is living shall, in
accordance with Section 13 of the Ordinance on Population
Records (folkbokföringsförordningen), be considered resident
at his family's place of living if he visits the family on a
regular basis.

From the facts of this case it appears that (the applicant) on
census day, 1 November 1984, had an occasional job and a small
place of living at Vimmerby, that his family occupied the
ordinary residence at Figeholm and that (the applicant)
according to his own submissions visits the family when
possible.  In these circumstances the Court finds that (the
applicant) correctly has been considered resident in the
municipality of Oskarshamn for the year 1985."

        The applicant appealed against this judgment to the
Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) of Jönköping which,
however, rejected the appeal.  In its judgment of 22 November 1985 the
Court of Appeal stated:

"In his appeal (the applicant) submits inter alia the
following : He stayed most of the time at his property
Fogleboda at Kyrkhult.  He has held different jobs in Vimmerby
and in Hörby and did not then live at Figeholm.  He has not
visited the family there on a regular basis.  His wife often
stayed in Jämtland due to her illness.  His daughter is of age
and may take up her place of residence where she wants.  It is
difficult to find work and he has only his property at
Fogleboda to rely upon for which reason he should be
considered resident in the municipality of Olofström.

The Administrative Court of Appeal decides as follows.

The County Administrative Court has found that (the
applicant) should be considered resident at Oskarshamn for the
year 1985. (The applicant's) submissions in the Court of Appeal
do not, having regard to the contents of the investigation in
its entirety, lead to any other result."

        The applicant appealed against this judgment to the Supreme
Administrative Court (regeringsrätten) which, however, refused to
grant leave to appeal on 13 June 1986.

COMPLAINTS

        The applicant invokes Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the
Convention.  He maintains that the Swedish authorities have denied him
the right to choose his residence.


THE LAW

        The applicant has invoked Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (P4-2)
to the Convention which provides in its first paragraph that everyone
lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory,
have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his
residence.

        In this respect the Commission recalls that there has been no
interference with the applicant's right to take up a residence where
he found it appropriate.  Indeed it appears from the facts of the case
that the applicant has resided at several different places in order to
find appropriate jobs.  In these circumstances the Commission finds
that the rights and freedoms guaranteed to the applicant under Article
2 of Protocol No. 4 (P4-2) have not been infringed and it follows that
the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of
Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.


        For these reasons, the Commission

        DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE


Secretary to the Commission               President of the Commission




    (H. C. KRUGER)                              (C. A. NØRGAARD)