Search
document

Document text Analytics

STALLKNECHT v. SWEDEN

Doc ref: 27328/95 • ECHR ID: 001-2933

Document date: May 15, 1996

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

STALLKNECHT v. SWEDEN

Doc ref: 27328/95 • ECHR ID: 001-2933

Document date: May 15, 1996

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 27328/95

by Brigitte STALLKNECHT

against Sweden

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 15 May 1996, the following members being present:

Mrs. G.H. THUNE, Acting President

MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

F. MARTINEZ

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

Ms. M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 12 April 1995 by

Brigitte Stallknecht against Sweden and registered on 15 May 1995 under

file No. 27328/95;

Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent

Government on 5 March 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by

the applicant on 3 April 1996;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, a Swedish citizen born in 1942, resides at

Rimforsa.

The application concerns a dispute between the applicant and the

National Board of Agriculture (Statens jordbruksnämnd) as to who was

the rightful recipient of certain farming subsidies. The subsidies were

granted for the period 1 July 1990 - 30 June 1991 and paid on

31 January 1991 to the bankruptcy estate of the previous owner of the

farm in question. Claiming that the subsidies were due to her, as she

was running the farm during the above period, the applicant brought

proceedings against the Board, first in the ordinary courts and

thereafter in the administrative courts. The applicant's action was

dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction by the Supreme Court (Högsta

domstolen) on 22 November 1994 and by the Supreme Administrative Court

(Regeringsrätten) on 22 November 1995.

The applicant alleges that her right to a determination by a

court under Article 6 or, in the alternative, Article 13 of the

Convention has been violated. She maintains that the right to the

subsidies at issue is a civil right within the meaning of Article 6.

On 19 October 1995 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided to

communicate the application to the respondent Government pursuant to

Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.

By letter of 5 March 1996, the Government informed the Commission

that a friendly settlement agreement had been reached between the

parties on 20 February 1996. The terms of the agreement are as follows:

(Translation)

"1. The Government will pay compensation of two hundred

thousand (200,000) SEK, all included, to the [the

applicant].

2. [The applicant] declares that she has no further claims

in respect of the alleged violation of Article 6 or,

alternatively, Article 13 of the Convention in the case in

question.

3. The parties agree that [the applicant] shall withdraw

her complaints so that the case can be struck out of the

Commission's list of cases."

The agreement was approved by the Government by decision of

29 February 1996.

By letter of 3 April 1996, the applicant informed the Commission

of her wish to withdraw the present application following the friendly

settlement agreement. She further stated that the agreed compensation

had been paid by the Government.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Having regard to Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention, the

Commission notes that the applicant does not intend to pursue her

petition. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 30 para. 1 in fine,

the Commission finds no circumstances regarding respect for human

rights as defined in the Convention which require the continuation of

the examination of the application. The Commission, therefore, accedes

to the applicant's request to withdraw her case.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.

Secretary to Acting President

the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber

(M.-T. SCHOEPFER) (G.H. THUNE)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant