Lexploria

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Application No. 14943/89

Martin Denev

against

Sweden

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 4 July 1994)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

PART I : STATEMENT OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

PART II : SOLUTION REACHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

INTRODUCTION

1. This Report relates to the application introduced under

Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Mr. Martin Denev against Sweden on

14 April 1989. It was registered on 20 April 1989 under file

No. 14943/89.

The Government of Sweden were represented by their Agent,

Mrs. Eva Jagander.

2. On 11 October 1993 the Commission declared the application partly

admissible and partly inadmissible. It then proceeded to carry out

its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides as

follows :

"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to

it :

a. it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake

together with the representatives of the parties an examination

of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the

effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all

necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the

Commission ;

b. it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of

the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly

settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights

as defined in this Convention."

3. The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly

settlement of the case and on 4 July 1994 it adopted this Report,

which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, is

confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.

The following members were present when the Report was adopted :

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

A. WEITZEL

F. ERMACORA

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

J. MUCHA

E. KONSTANTINOV

D. SVÁBY

G. RESS

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

I

4. On 2 January 1980 the applicant applied to the Patent and

Registration Office (patent- och registreringsverket), hereinafter

called the PRO, for the registration of a patent which concerned a

construction to be used in connection with the exploitation of wind

power. On 18 September 1985 the PRO rejected the applicant's

application. The applicant appealed against this decision to the Court

of Patent Appeals (patentbesvärsrätten) on 15 November 1985 but

withdrew his appeal on 29 December 1988. The Court of Patent Appeals

struck the case off its list of cases on 12 January 1989.

II

5. On 1 October 1981 the applicant applied to the PRO for the

registration of a patent which concerned the exploitation of wind power

in connection with a construction which could be used as both an

aircraft and a boat. The PRO rejected the application on

18 September 1985. The applicant appealed against this decision to the

Court of Patent Appeals on 18 November 1985 but withdrew the

application on 29 December 1988. The Court of Patent Appeals struck the

case off its list of cases on 12 January 1989.

III

6. On 5 October 1982 the applicant applied to the PRO for the

registration of a patent which concerned a construction lighter than

air, to be used in connection with wind power stations, roofs and solar

collectors, as well as for the protection of plants and for transports.

The PRO rejected the application on 27 February 1985. The applicant

appealed against this decision to the Court of Patent Appeals on

26 April 1985 but withdrew the appeal on 29 December 1988. The Court

of Patent Appeals struck the case off its list of cases on

12 January 1989.

7. Before the Commission the applicant complained that his patent

applications had not been determined within a reasonable time as

required by Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

8. Following the decision on the admissibility of the application,

the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view

to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with

Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to

submit any proposals they wished to make.

9. In accordance with the usual practice, the Secretary, acting on

the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the

possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement. Following an exchange

of correspondence, the applicant submitted the following telex which

arrived on 31 January 1994:

"APPLICATION 14943/89 DENEV NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES CASE 1

20,000 CASE 3 20,000 EXTREMELY LONGLASTING FEELINGS OF

UNCERTAINTY COSTS 10,000 SEK

MARTIN DENEV"

10. By letter of 28 February 1994 the Agent of the respondent

Government submitted as follows:

"I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your

letter of 3 February 1994 enclosing the applicant's

proposal to settle the case on the basis of the payment by

the Swedish Government of a sum totalling 50,000 SEK. I

wish to inform you that the Government is prepared to

accept the applicant's proposal on the assumption that he

has no further claims on the Swedish State based on the

facts of the above application. Any settlement, however, is

dependent upon the formal approval of the Government at a

Cabinet meeting."

11. A copy of the Government's letter was transmitted to the

applicant by registered mail on 1 March 1994. He was furthermore

informed that in the light of the parties' reactions it was assumed

that he agreed with the Government's understanding that he had no

further claims in relation to the facts of this case and he was

requested to confirm this before 20 March 1994.

12. The Commission received no reply to this letter and a reminder,

sent by registered mail on 25 March 1994, was returned with an

indication that the applicant had moved.

13. By letter of 4 May 1994 the Agent of the Government submitted

that the Government had approved the settlement on 21 April 1994.

14. A copy of the Government's letter was transmitted to the

applicant's new address by registered mail on 19 May 1994. He received

the letter on 31 May 1994, but did not reply. On 15 June 1994, however,

the Government submitted a copy of a letter from the applicant by which

he requested the payment of 50,000 SEK as approved by the Government

on 21 April 1994.

15. At its session on 4 July 1994, the Commission considered the

state of the proceedings of the application in the light of the

parties' above submissions. It found that the parties had reached an

agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. It further considered,

having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, that the

friendly settlement of the case had been secured on the basis of

respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.

16. For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

Menu

DENEV v. SWEDEN

DENEV v. SWEDEN

LEXI