TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN JUDGMENT 12 there was no right to obtain or retain a licence of the kind at issue here, in view of the wide discretion enjoyed by the competent authorities; furthermore, the licence itself could not be considered to confer any right. They also contended that reasons existed for not submitting to civil or administrative courts questions relating to the revocation of licences to serve alcoholic beverages: such matters formed part of the implementation of the Swedish policy concerning alcoholic beverages. 39. The Court, like the Commission, cannot share this view. First of all, subject to the possibility of its being revoked, the licence conferred a "right" on the applicant company in the form of an authorisation to sell alcoholic beverages in the restaurant Le Cardinal in accordance with the conditions set out in the licence and with the provisions of the 1977 Act (see, mutatis mutandis, the above-mentioned Pudas judgment, Series A no. 125-A, p. 15, para. 34). Section 64 of this Act prescribes the conditions under which a licence to serve alcoholic beverages may be revoked (see paragraphs 27-28 above), that is to say, where the sale of alcoholic beverages causes annoyance relating to public order, drunkenness or disturbance of the peace or where the conditions of the licence or the provisions of the 1977 Act, including the requirement of suitability of the licensee, are not complied with. The last condition allows the competent administrative authorities a certain discretion; decisions revoking licences of this kind must, however, be taken within the framework of the 1977 Act. In the instant case, the National Board of Health and Welfare, in giving its decision of 13 July 1983 as to the suitability of TTA, interpreted section 64 in conjunction with sections 40 and 70 of the Act, and arrived at the conclusion that the only possible action was the revocation of the licence (see paragraph 19 above). In assessing the circumstances of the case in accordance with the 1977 Act, the competent authorities could have taken, under section 64(1), measures less severe than revocation, such as limiting the licence to certain alcoholic beverages, an admonition or special instructions (see paragraph 27 above). In this connection reference may in fact be made to the first decision of the County Administrative Board, dated 7 January 1983, in which it considered it sufficient to issue a serious admonition against the applicant company (see paragraph 16 above). 40. Bearing these circumstances in mind, the Court considers that the applicant company could maintain, on arguable grounds, that under Swedish law it was entitled to continue to run its restaurant business under the licence unless it contravened the conditions laid down therein or gave rise to any of the statutory grounds for revocation (section 64 of the 1977 Act). TTA also argued that the revocation of the licence was illegal and was not based on any arguable public interest so that there was an abuse of power (détournement de pouvoir) on the part of the competent authorities. It was thus challenging the lawfulness of the revocation.