Lexploria

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Application Nos. 12867/87 and 14073/88

Owe SKOOGSTRÖM (II and III)

against

SWEDEN

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 8 March 1989)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

&SINTRODUCTION&_

1. This report relates to Applications Nos. 12867/87 and 14073/88

introduced against Sweden by Mr. Owe Skoogström under Article 25 of

the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental

Freedoms. Application No. 12867/87 was introduced on 28 January 1987

and registered on 21 April 1987. Application No. 14073/88 was

introduced on 12 May 1987 and registered on 28 July 1988.

The Government of Sweden were represented by their Agent,

Mr. Carl-Henrik Ehrenkrona, Legal Adviser at the Ministry for Foreign

Affairs, Stockholm.

2. On 12 May 1988 and 14 October 1988 respectively the European

Commission of Human Rights declared the applications admissible.* The

Commission then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 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 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 March 1989 it adopted this Report,

which, in accordance with Article 30 of the Convention, is confined

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

________________________

* These decisions are public and can be obtained from the

Commission's Secretary.

The following members of the Commission were present when the

Report was adopted.

MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President

J. A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J. C. SOYER

H. G. SCHERMERS

G. BATLINER

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. F. MARTINEZ

Mr. C. L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

Mr. L. LOUCAIDES

&SPART I&_

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

4. The applicant is a Swedish citizen born in 1939 and resident

at Östavall.

A. Application No. 12867/87

5. On 14 January 1987 a District Prosecutor (distriktsåklagare)

at Sundsvall issued an order for the provisional detention of the

applicant on suspicion of aggravated fraud and theft. Between 18.30

and 19.00 the same day the applicant was arrested at Jönköping. He was

taken to the police station where he spent the night in custody. On

the next day the applicant was taken to Sundsvall, 800 kilometres away

where he was kept in provisional detention.

6. The District Court (tingsrätt) of Sundsvall held a hearing on

21 January 1987 at 14.00 hours after which it ordered that the

applicant be detained (häktad) on the grounds that he was reasonably

suspected of using false documents, falsification of documents,

embezzlement and forgery, that it could be expected that he would

evade legal proceedings and that there was a risk, if the applicant

was released, that he would continue criminal activities.

7. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal

for Southern Norrland (hovrätten för Nedre Norrland) and then to the

Supreme Court (högsta domstolen) which on 4 February 1987 refused

leave to appeal. On 26 February 1987 the District Court sentenced the

applicant to six months' imprisonment.

B. Application No. 14073/88

8. On 16 April 1987 at 06.30 the applicant was arrested pursuant

to an order of the public prosecutor at Sundsvall.

9. The District Court held a hearing on 22 April 1987 and ordered

that the applicant be detained on the grounds that he was reasonably

suspected of, inter alia, theft in Hongkong and fraud in Italy,

that it could be expected that he would evade legal proceedings and

that, moreover, there was a risk, if the applicant was released, that

he would continue criminal activities.

10. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal

for Southern Norrland and then to the Supreme Court which on

4 May 1987 refused leave to appeal. On 11 June 1987 the District Court

sentenced the applicant to three months' imprisonment, inter alia, for

theft and fraud.

C. Complaint

11. Before the Commission the applicant complained that, following

his arrests on 14 January and 16 April 1987 respectively, he was not

brought "promptly" before a judge as required by Article 5 para. 3 of

the Convention.

&SPART II&_

SOLUTION REACHED

12. Following its decisions on the admissibility of the

applications, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the

parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance

with Article 28 (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 in order to

explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement. Following

an exchange of letters the Agent of the Government, by letter of

23 February 1989, submitted on behalf of the parties the following

text signed by both parties:

"SETTLEMENT

On 12 May and 14 October 1988 the European Commission of Human

Rights decided to declare admissible Application No. 12867/87 and

Application No. 14073/88, both lodged by Mr. Owe Skoogström against

Sweden.

The Government and Mr. Skoogström have now reached the

following friendly settlement on the basis of respect for Human Rights

as defined in the Convention in order to terminate the proceedings

before the Commission.

a. The Government will pay the sum of ten thousand (10 000)

Swedish Crowns to the applicant.

b. Mr. Skoogström declares that he has no further claims with

respect to the events referred to in the two above applications.

This settlement is dependent upon the formal approval of the

Government.

Stockholm, 1 February 1989 Skinnskatteberg, February 1989

Carl-Henrik Ehrenkrona Owe Skoogström"

Agent of the Swedish Government

14. The Government approved the settlement on 16 February 1989.

15. An amendment to the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure

(rättegångsbalken) was enacted on 17 December 1987 (Svensk

författningssamling 1987:1211) and entered into force on 12 April

1988. It follows from the new rules that where a person has been

arrested and provisionally detained by order of the public prosecutor,

a request for his detention on remand shall be submitted to the court

on the same day as the provisional detention was ordered or, at the

latest, on the following day. Where there are special reasons, the

request may be postponed up to the third day after the provisional

detention order (Chapter 24 Section 12 of the Code). The Court shall

hold a hearing regarding the request for detention on remand on the

same day as the request is received or, at the latest, on the

following day. If there are special reasons, the hearing may be

postponed, but it must never be held later than 96 hours after the

arrest (Chapter 24 Section 13 of the Code).

16. The Commission, at its session on 8 March 1989, noted that the

relevant Swedish law has been amended. It further noted that the parties

had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. The

Commission found, having regard to Article 28 (b) of the Convention,

that a friendly settlement had been secured on the basis of respect

for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

Menu

SKOOGSTRÖM (II and III) v. SWEDEN

SKOOGSTRÖM (II and III) v. SWEDEN

LEXI