15 TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN JUDGMENT Health and Welfare on 13 July and 15 August 1983 (see paragraphs 19 and 21 above). The latter’s decision rejecting TTA’s appeal for a stay of execution (see paragraph 21 above) was not open to review as to its lawfulness by either the ordinary or the administrative courts or by another body which could be considered a "tribunal" for the purposes of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1). Furthermore, the Government did not seem to contest that none of the above-mentioned administrative bodies met the requirements of a "tribunal", and the Court agrees with the Commission and the applicant that they did not. 49. The Government also contended that persons who considered themselves to be victims of an administrative error or a decision contrary to Swedish law might bring an action against the State before the ordinary courts and claim compensation under the Tort Liability Act (see paragraph 32 above). The Court, however, points out that the dispute at issue here concerned the question whether TTA’s licence should be revoked and not the authorities’ liability for fault or negligence. In this latter connection, the Chancellor of Justice had expressed the opinion on 5 March 1984 that such liability did not exist (see paragraph 22 above). In these circumstances, this remedy does not meet the requirements of Article 6 (art. 6). C. Conclusion 50. The Court thus concludes that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 (art. 13) OF THE CONVENTION 51. The applicant company contended that, contrary to Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention, no "effective remedy before a national authority" existed in respect of the matters of which it complained. This allegation was based on the same facts as that under Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1). Taking into account that the requirements of Article 13 (art. 13) are less strict than, and are here absorbed by, those of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1), and that it has already found a violation of the latter Article (art. 6-1) (see paragraph 50 above), the Court does not find it necessary to consider the matter further (see, inter alia, the above-mentioned Pudas judgment, Series A no. 125-A, p. 17, para. 43).