Lexploria

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Application No. 14369/88

Noviflora Sweden AB

against

Sweden

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 8 July 1993)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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 Noviflora Sweden AB against Sweden

on 29 April 1988. It was registered on 8 November 1988 under file

No. 14369/88.

The applicant, a limited liability company, was represented by

Jan Axelsson, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.

The Government of Sweden were represented by their Agent,

Mr. HÃ¥kan Berglin and subsequently by Ms. Eva Jagander, Ministry for

Foreign Affairs, Stockholm.

2 On 12 October 1992 the Commission declared admissible the

applicant company's complaints under Article 8 of the Convention,

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the

Convention in conjunction with the first two mentioned Articles. The

remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. The Commission

then proceeded to carry out its tasks 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 8 July 1993 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

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

G.B. REFFI

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

B. CONFORTI

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

4 The applicant is a limited liability company with its

headquarters in Stockholm. One of the board members (D.J.) is the owner

of a law firm with its headquarters at Södertälje. A branch office of

the law firm is located at the same address as the applicant company's

headquarters in Stockholm.

5 In relation to an investigation of tax offences suspected to have

been committed by the applicant company's affiliate in the Netherlands

searches were, on 2 November 1987, conducted at the applicant company's

headquarters in Stockholm and subsequently at the headquarters of the

law firm at Södertälje. In connection with the latter search documents

pertaining to the applicant company and its affiliate were seized.

6 The lawfulness of the seizure was contested, the applicant

company arguing that D.J. had received seized documents from the

applicant company in his capacity as advocate and that they were

therefore protected from seizure under Chapter 27, Section 2 of the

Code of Judicial Procedure (rättegångsbalken). On 6 November 1987 the

District Court (tingsrätten) of Stockholm concluded, however, that the

seizure had been lawful.

7 Following the applicant company's appeal to the Svea Court of

Appeal (Svea hovrätt) the State Prosecutor for Special Cases

(statsåklagaren för speciella mål) lifted the seizure and returned the

documents. In the light of this the appeal was dismissed on 25 March

1988.

8 The applicant company appealed to the Supreme Court (högsta

domstolen), which on 6 October 1988 quashed the decision of the Svea

Court of Appeal and referred the case back for a new examination.

9 On 14 September 1989 the Svea Court of Appeal concluded that the

seizure had been unlawful. It further found that prior to the lifting

of the seizure photocopies had been made of certain documents.

10 On 14 September 1990 the Supreme Court quashed the decision of

the Svea Court of Appeal and limited its own examination to the

question whether the seizure had been lawful as regards the photocopied

documents. The Supreme Court concluded that in this respect the seizure

had been unlawful.

11 Before the Commission the applicant company complained that the

seizure and subsequent measures related thereto were not carried out

in accordance with the law, as required by Article 8 of the Convention,

that they violated its property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No.

1 to the Convention and that it had no effective remedy within the

meaning of Article 13 of the Convention against those violations.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

12 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.

13 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.

14 Following an exchange of letters between the parties the Agent

of the Government, by letter of 23 June 1993, submitted the following

agreement reached between the applicant company and the Government:

"SETTLEMENT

On 12 October 1992 the European Commission of Human Rights

declared partly admissible and partly inadmissible application

No. 14369/88 lodged by Noviflora Sweden AB against Sweden.

The Swedish Government and Noviflora Sweden AB have now reached

the following friendly settlement, on the basis of respect for

human rights as defined in the European Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in order to

terminate the proceedings before the Commission.

a) The Government will pay the sum of SEK 50,000 to Noviflora

Sweden AB;

b) The Government will pay the applicant company's costs and

expenses in the amount of SEK 120,000;

c) Noviflora Sweden AB declares that it has no further claims

on the Swedish State based on the facts of the above application.

__________

This settlement is dependent upon the formal approval of the

Swedish Government at a Cabinet meeting.

Stockholm, 24 May 1993 Stockholm, 26 May 1993

(signed) (signed)

Eva Jagander Jan Axelsson

Agent of the Swedish Counsel for the

Government applicant company"

15 On 10 June 1993 the above agreement was formally approved by the

Government.

16 At its session on 8 July 1993, the Commission noted 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.

17 For these reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

Menu

NOVIFLORA SWEDEN AB v. SWEDEN

NOVIFLORA SWEDEN AB v. SWEDEN