In Finland judges are unelected, rather they’re are appointed by the state, the same goes for many countries around the world. Unelected (local) judges aren’t accountable to anyone, so hence the freedom to make preposterous rulings without care of being held accountable. So a landlord is Sweden cannot determine what may or may not belong on his own property, the state can dictate that instead. This is state over reach and violates personal property rights, the tenants can find another place to live if they don’t agree with the house rules. KGS
Two tenants in Sweden took their government to court after they were evicted by their landlord in a dispute over a dish.
The couple installed one of the dishes on their rented property but the landlord ordered them to take it down. They refused and were later thrown out of the property.
But European judges ruled that the Swedish government had failed in its obligation to protect the couple’s right to receive information. It found that satellite dishes come under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In its guidance, Britain’s equalities watchdog suggested that a disabled tenant who received transmissions of religious services held overseas would have their rights to freedom of religion breached if their landlord banned satellite dishes.
The European Commission’s Internal Market Commissioner Frits Bolkestein said: ‘The right to use a satellite dish [is] one of the many concrete benefits for European consumers of the free movement of goods and services within the internal market.