11 TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN JUDGMENT AS TO THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 (art. 6) OF THE CONVENTION 35. The applicant company complained that, under Swedish law, it did not have the possibility of having the revocation of its licence to serve alcoholic beverages in Le Cardinal reviewed by a court. It alleged a violation of Article 6 paras. 1 and 2 (art. 6-1, art. 6-2) which, as far as is relevant, provide: "1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing by [a] ... tribunal .... 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law." The first issue to be resolved is the applicability of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) and, in particular, whether the case involved a "determination" either of a "civil right" or of a "criminal charge". A. Applicability of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) 1. Determination of "civil rights and obligations" 36. Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) extends only to disputes ("contestations") over "civil rights and obligations" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law (see, inter alia, the Neves e Silva judgment of 27 April 1989, Series A no. 153, p. 14, para. 37). The two questions to be answered by the Court are thus: whether there was a dispute over a "right" and whether this "right" was of a "civil" nature. (a) Existence of a dispute ("contestation") over a "right" 37. As to the existence of a dispute over a right within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1), the Court refers to the principles enunciated in its case-law (see, inter alia, the Benthem judgment of 23 October 1985, Series A no. 97, pp. 14-15, para. 32, and the Pudas judgment of 27 October 1987, Series A no. 125-A, p. 14, para. 31). In particular, the dispute must be genuine and of a serious nature; it may relate not only to the actual existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise and, finally, the result of the proceedings concerning the dispute at issue must be directly decisive for such a right. 38. The Government argued that no serious dispute ("contestation") of fact or law had arisen concerning a right. They observed that, in Sweden,