AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 14017/88

                      by Claes-Göran FRIDH and CIFOND AKTIEBOLAG

                      against Sweden

      The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

2 July 1992, the following members being present:

           MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President

                 S. TRECHSEL

                 F. ERMACORA

                 E. BUSUTTIL

                 G. JÖRUNDSSON

                 A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

                 A. WEITZEL

                 J.-C. SOYER

                 H. DANELIUS

           Mrs.  G. H. THUNE

           Sir   Basil HALL

           Mr.   C.L. ROZAKIS

           Mrs.  J. LIDDY

           MM.   J.-C. GEUS

                 M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

                 B. MARXER

           Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

      Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

      Having regard to the application introduced on 4 May 1988 by

Claes-Göran FRIDH and CIFOND AKTIEBOLAG against Sweden and registered

on 11 July 1988 under file No. 14017/88;

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

of Procedure of the Commission;

      Having regard to the written observations submitted by the

respondent Government on 28 February 1990 and the observations in reply

submitted by the applicants on 2 May 1990 as well as the submissions

of the parties at the hearing held on 2 July 1992;

      Having deliberated;

      Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

      The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be

summarised as follows.

      The first applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1955 and

resident in Stockholm.  The second applicant is a limited liability

company with its seat in Stockholm. They are represented by

Mr. Thomas Tendorf, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.

A. Particular circumstances of the case

      At the origin of the present application is a decision, in

November 1987, to revoke from the professional stockbroker company

Civic Fondkommission Aktiebolag (Civic) its licences to deal in shares

and to keep shares in trust.

      Civic was founded in 1982 by three stockbrokers.  One of them was

the first applicant, who became managing director of the company and

member of the Board of Directors. At that time he owned 8% of the

shares in Civic.

      On 25 March 1982 the Bank Inspection Board (bankinspektionen -

hereinafter "the Board") granted Civic a permit to deal in shares under

the 1979 Stockbrokers Act (fondkommissionslagen 1979:748 - "the 1979

Act") and on 5 April 1982 the company became a member of the Stockholm

Stock Exchange (Stockholms fondbörs). On 15 April 1982 the Government

furthermore authorised the company to keep shares in trust in

accordance with Section 16, Sub-Section 1, of the 1970 Act on

Simplified Handling of Shares (lagen 1970:596 om förenklad

aktiehantering - "the 1970 Act"). The authorisation was granted on the

condition inter alia that Civic always should keep, in its deposit, a

number of shares corresponding to the number of shares registered as

its managed shares.

      In 1986 Civic's activities had expanded considerably and further

expansion was being planned. A new parent company, Civic Holding, was

accordingly founded in 1986. The first applicant became the managing

director of that company and ceased being managing director of Civic.

Civic Holding obtained all of Civic's shares which it held in trust and

Civic's shareholders received, for their shares, shares in Civic

Holding. Civic became a wholly owned subsidiary of Civic Holding which

also had a number of other subsidiaries dealing with financial matters,

real estate, insurance, etc.

      The number of shares in Civic Holding was at all relevant times

1.800.000, divided into 600.000 so-called A shares, having 1.000 votes

each, and 1.200.000 so-called B shares, having 100 votes each, a total

of 720.000.000 votes. The shares were divided between 64 owners by

25 August 1987. At the hearing before the Commission the first

applicant submitted that at the time of the revocation decision (see

below) he owned 578.320 shares, either in his personal capacity or

through a company wholly owned by him. These shares were divided as

follows:

1)    106.000 B shares registered in the name of Affärsstrategerna i

      Sverige, representing 10.600.000 votes;

2)    247.300 B shares registered in the name of the first applicant

      personally, representing 24.730.000 votes;

3)    225.020 A shares registered in the name of the first applicant

      personally, representing 225.020.000 votes.

      These shares represented 260.350.000 votes which was equivalent

to 36.2% of the total voting power in Civic Holding.

      During the period 3 November 1983 to 17 June 1987 the Board

carried out three inspections of Civic's activities.  The inspections,

so the applicants submit, resulted in some oral remarks from the Board

which led Civic to take certain measures, described by Civic as "of

minor importance", to comply.

      On 8 and 9 October 1987 a further inspection was made, whereby

the Board discovered a number of shortcomings in the activities of

Civic, which it considered grave. On 12 October 1987 a memorandum

containing the Board's observations following the inspection was

forwarded to Civic for comments within two days. This time limit was

subsequently extended by seven days.

      Civic submitted certain observations on 14 October 1987 and its

managers met with the Board on 15 October 1987 in order to discuss the

matter. Later the same day the Board held a meeting at which it laid

down certain general guidelines, the contents of which were not

recorded, regarding the decision to be taken by the Board's Director-

General as soon as Civic had submitted its further written

observations. These observations were submitted on 21 October 1987 and

2 November 1987.

      On 2 November 1987 the Director-General decided, on behalf of the

Board, to revoke, with immediate effect, both Civic's licence to deal

in shares and its authorisation to keep shares in trust. As a

consequence, Civic could as of that date no longer be a member of the

Stock Exchange.

      In the 13-page decision the Board concluded inter alia that Civic

had not properly held its shares separate from its clients' shares,

contrary to Chapter 2, Section 10, of the 1914 Act on Commissions,

Commerce Agencies and Representations (lagen (1914:45) om kommission,

handelsagentur och handelsresande), it had also in its own name sold

shares which had only been deposited with it by clients (blankning) in

violation of Section 23 of the 1979 Act and had thereby also violated

certain regulations issued by the Board in a circular letter in 1983

as well as the conditions set by the Government when granting the

authorisation of 15 April 1982. Furthermore, the Board found that the

inspection of Civic's activities had disclosed a number of violations

of Sections 13 and 21 of the 1979 Act in the form of irregularities

with regard to the trading of shares and index options and also with

regard to certain other financial transactions. The Board considered

that the shortcomings observed were of such a grave nature that it

would not be possible successfully to reconstruct the company.

      The decision was announced to the Board on 19 November 1987. The

Board was informed of the contents of Civic's observations which had

been the basis for the Director-General's decision on its behalf. The

Board had no objections to the decision or to the way the case had been

dealt with.  In a memorandum of 26 November 1987 it underlined that the

decision expressed the unanimous opinion of its members.

      Civic appealed against the decision to the Government requesting,

on the one hand, that the Government should set aside the Board's

decision as it had not been taken in accordance with the law and, on

the other hand, that the decision should be revoked, as the company had

taken adequate remedial action. Civic also asked the Government to

postpone the entry into force of the revocation decision until the

Government had examined the matter. This last request was rejected by

the Government on 19 November 1987.

      The Board submitted its written observations to the Government

on 11, 17 and 26 November 1987 and Civic submitted further observations

on 20, 23 and 30 November 1987.

      On 10 December 1987 the Government rejected Civic's appeal on the

merits.

      It pointed out that a decision to revoke a licence to deal in

shares should,  according to Section 8 of the 1979 Ordinance with

Instructions for the Board (förordning 1979:740 med instruktion för

bankinspektionen), be taken by the Board if the measure could be

considered to be of particular importance for those concerned.

According to Section 9 of the Ordinance an urgent matter could, in

certain circumstances, be decided by the Director-General and four

members of the Board.  If this procedure would not be appropriate the

Director-General could in certain cases take a decision in the presence

of the responsible staff member but such a decision should be announced

at the next meeting of the Board.  The Ordinance did not otherwise

permit the Board to delegate to the Director-General its competence to

decide. The Government held that, having regard inter alia to the

considerable economic interests affected by the decision and its

importance to Civic's employees, it ought to have been taken by the

Board.  However, as the Board had laid down general guidelines for the

decision and had stated on 26 November 1987 that the decision expressed

its  unanimous opinion, the Government did not find it necessary to

annul the decision and remit the matter to the Board for a new

decision.

      The Government went on to examine the merits of the decision

appealed against. They observed that Civic had seriously neglected the

regulations governing its activities. They found it established that,

although Civic had taken certain measures to remedy the unsatisfactory

state of affairs, the company had proved itself unfit to deal in shares

and to keep shares in trust. The Government found that a written

warning would not suffice and decided to uphold the Board's decision.

      Following the revocation, Civic submitted a complaint to the

Parliamentary Ombudsman (justitieombudsmannen). In a decision of 22

February 1988 the Ombudsman criticised the Board for giving Civic,

initially, only two days to file a reply to the Board's memorandum of

12 October 1987.  Moreover, he found that the Board's transfer to the

Director-General of its competence to decide the matter violated the

1979 Ordinance, considering the importance of the matter to Civic and

its employees.  The Ombudsman also noted that the Government, in their

decision of 10 December 1987, had considered whether the Board ought

to have given Civic a written warning in accordance with Section 31 of

the 1979 Act before revoking the licences and whether the decision of

the Director-General should have been considered a nullity.  He pointed

out, however, that he had no competence to examine the Government's

decision in these respects.

      As a consequence of the revocation of Civic's licences to deal

in shares and to keep shares in trust, the company's activities ceased.

As indicated above the parent company, Civic Holding, at that time held

1.800.000 shares in trust, and the applicants submit that the estimated

value was approximately 229.000.000 Swedish crowns. However, as Civic

Holding no longer owned a subsidiary company with a licence to deal in

shares, it saw no other alternative than to try to sell the shares. A

company holding licences of the kind Civic had lost offered to buy the

shares at 10 crowns per share plus an option in the company, valued,

so the applicants submit, at a maximum of 15 crowns. It appears that

almost all shareholders, including the first applicant, accepted the

offer and they received, in December 1987, a total of 47.700.000

crowns. Accordingly, the applicants submit that Civic Holding's

shareholders' total loss was approximately 181.000.000 crowns. From the

documents submitted it appears that as from 7 January 1988 the first

applicant did not own shares in Civic Holding any longer.

      On 4 February 1988 Civic and Civic Holding entered into the

following agreement with a company called Hängmattan 8 AB which had

been established on 17 September 1987:

(translation)

                               "TRANSFER

      Civic and Civic Holding hereby transfer to Hängmattan 8 AB

      (556303-4808) whose name will be changed to Cifond Aktiebolag

      [the second applicant] the right to damages and/or other

      compensation which Civic and/or Civic Holding may have against

      the Swedish State or any other body as a result of the revocation

      of the licence to deal in shares (fondkommissionstillståndet) and

      of the authorisation to keep shares in trust (förvaltare av

      aktier) and/or the manner in which any authority concerned has

      dealt with this matter.

                       Stockholm 4 February 1988

CIVIC FONDKOMMISSION AB          AB CIVIC HOLDING

(signature)     (signature)      (signature)       (signature)

Bure Malmström  Hans Herrlin     Gerhard Hällgård  Claes-Göran Fridh"

      On 30 March 1988 the Patent and Registration Office (Patent- och

registreringsverket) recorded that Hängmattan 8 had changed its name

to Cifond AB (the second applicant) the registered purpose of which was

to bring proceedings, nationally or internationally, against the

Swedish State in order to obtain for Civic Holding's shareholders

compensation for the revocation of Civic's licences.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

      Professional stockbroking in Sweden was governed at the relevant

time the 1979 Act and the 1970 Act and the 1970 Ordinance on Simplified

Handling of Shares (förordningen 1970:600 om förenklad aktiehantering -

"the 1970 Ordinance"). As of 1 July 1987 the 1970 Act and the 1970

Ordinance were replaced by the 1987 Act on Simplified Handling of

Shares (lagen 1987:623 om förenklad aktiehantering - "the 1987 Act").

a. Professional Stockbroking and the Bank Inspection Board

      According to the 1979 Act, Section 3, everyone who wishes to deal

professionally in shares must have the permission of the Board, which

is a specialised organ supervising banks and professional stockbrokers.

Such a licence may be granted only to Swedish limited liability

companies and to Swedish banks that meet the requirements laid down in

the Act. These are in particular that the articles of association of

the company or the bank must not conflict with the Act or any other

statute, that the company or bank must not be unsuitable to conduct the

kind of business activity at issue and that the enterprise must not

harm the public. In addition the minimum share capital is 500.000

Swedish crowns.

      The travaux préparatoires (proposition 1978/79:9, pp. 175-176)

to the 1979 Act provide the following background information as to the

conditions for granting a licence. The Board shall look into the

organisation of the business and the personal suitability of the

management and the owners. Before granting a permit the Board must

ascertain that the business will be conducted in a correct and

judicious manner. The question of whether or not a company or a bank

is deemed suitable to conduct the business of dealing professionally

in shares is an essential part of the Board's consideration of an

application for a licence.

      The activities of professional stockbrokers are supervised by the

Board (Section 26 of the 1979 Act). The Board shall ensure that the

brokers conduct their business in accordance with the 1979 Act and

other statutes governing their activities. Furthermore, the Board

shall, to the extent needed, supervise their activities in order to

make sure that their business is conducted in an acceptable manner, not

only from the point of view of capital investment security, but also

taking into account the general demand for security and other factors

which are important for the sound development of stockbroking (Section

27). In order to make it possible for the Board to fulfil its tasks,

the professional stockbrokers have to submit certain documents and

reports to the Board. The Board may also collect information through

inspections at their offices or in other ways (Section 28).

      The Board may revoke a licence in three different cases: first,

if the assets of the limited liability company of the professional

stockbroker do not correspond to a specified part of the required share

capital; secondly, if the stockbroking company or bank infringes the

1979 Act, manifestly sets aside the interests of its clients or in any

other way demonstrates that it is no longer suitable to engage in the

stockbroking business; and finally, if the brokerage business in some

other way proves to be harmful to the general interest (Section 29).

      Instead of revoking the licence, the Board may issue a written

warning to the professional stockbroker in cases where it considers

this sufficient (Section 31).

      As regards the background to these rules the above-mentioned

travaux préparatoires state the following (pp. 151-152). The investors

are entitled to an official supervision of the activities of the

professional stockbrokers equivalent to that applied to banks and

insurance companies. Accordingly, the regulations proposed correspond

to a large extent to those governing the banks. The aim of the

supervision is to ensure that the brokers conduct their business in

forms that are acceptable from the point of view of capital investment

security. The Board shall note phenomena which could negatively

influence the brokers' wish and capability to act according to the

interests of their customers, e.g. cases where the broker might have

interests contrary to those of the clients. The Board should therefore

ensure that the brokers observe the 1979 Act and other statutes

regulating their activities. It should also supervise the brokers'

respect of their own articles of association. In addition, the Board

shall ascertain that the management and the owners of the broker are

persons who can be expected to conduct the business in a correct and

judicious manner.

b. Authorisation to keep shares in trust under the 1987 Act on

   Simplified Handling of Shares

      According to the 1987 Act, the Government or the special

authority entrusted with this task (i.e. the Board) may authorise banks

and professional stockbrokers to hold shares in trust for their clients

(Section 6, Sub-Section 1). When granting an authorisation the Board

may prescribe such conditions as it deems necessary both in relation

to the general interest and to the private interests involved. An

authorisation may be revoked according to the same Act if the broker

does not comply with the conditions issued and if the non-observance

is deemed to be important.

      The travaux préparatoires (Government Bill 1970:99 - which is

also referred to in the Bill proposing the 1987 Act) indicate that a

prerequisite for maintaining an authorisation given under the 1970 and

1987 Acts is that the company or the bank is holding a licence under

the 1979 Act to deal professionally in shares. Banks and brokers have

furthermore to have satisfactory bookkeeping concerning the deposited

shares in order to receive this authorisation. The trustee

(förvaltaren) has, for instance, to have complete and reliable

information regarding the actual shareholder and his/her stock of

shares. If the conditions are seriously infringed, the authorisation

may be revoked.

c. Decisions of the Bank Inspection Board

      At the relevant time, the competence of the Board was regulated

by the 1979 Ordinance. This Ordinance specified that the Board should

consist of six members headed by a Director-General.

      According to this Ordinance (Section 8, Sub-Section 7) decisions

concerning inter alia various licences, should be taken by the Board

to the extent that the decision could be deemed to be of special

importance for a body under the supervision of the Board. However, the

Board could also decide a case through communications between the

Director-General and at least four other members of the Board if the

matter was of such an urgent nature that there was no time for the

Board members to convene (Section 9). If the case could not be handled

in this way either, the Director-General was allowed to make

decision on his/her own in the presence of the person reporting the

case. Such a decision had to be reported to the Board at its following

meeting.

d. Appeals to the Government and other remedies

      Decisions by the Board under the 1979 and 1987 Acts may be

appealed against to the Government as first and final instance (Section

46 of the 1979 Act and Section 10 of the 1987 Act). The proceedings

before the Government are not regulated by the Administrative Procedure

Act (förvaltningslagen) although the Government will, as a matter of

practice, follow, as far as possible, the provisions of this Act. At

the relevant time, the Government's decisions could not be appealed to

the courts. As from 1 June 1988 a possibility of judicial review of the

Government's decisions has been created through the entry into force

of the 1988 Act on Judicial Review of certain Administrative Decisions

(lag om rättsprövning av vissa förvaltningsbeslut).

COMPLAINTS

      The applicants allege a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention.  They argue that the revocation of Civic's licences to deal

in shares and to keep shares in trust was a determination of that

company's civil rights.  Since the only right of appeal was to the

Government, Civic had no possibility of having the dispute which arose

with regard to the revocation of the licences examined by a court.

      They also allege a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.

      Furthermore, they maintain that the revocation of Civic's

licences to deal in shares and to keep shares in trust amounted to a

deprivation of property contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the

Convention.

      Finally, they complain that Civic has been the victim of

discrimination as the Board did not treat other cases of failure to

comply with the relevant regulations in the same way as Civic's case.

The applicants invoke Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

      The application was introduced on 4 May 1988 and registered on

11 July 1988.

      On 14 December 1989 the Commission decided to bring the

application to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite

them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of

the application.

      The Government submitted their observations on 28 February 1990

and the applicants submitted their observations in reply on 2 May 1990.

      On 31 March 1992 the Commission decided to hold a hearing on the

admissibility and merits of the application.

      The hearing took place on 2 July 1992. The parties were

represented as follows:

      For the Government

-     Mr. Carl Henrik Ehrenkrona, Assistant Under-Secretary, Ministry

      for Foreign Affairs, Agent

-     Mr. Göran Haag, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Finance

      For the applicants

-     Mr. Thomas Tendorf, lawyer, counsel for the applicants

-     Mr. Claes-Göran Fridh, applicant and representative of Cifond AB.

THE LAW

      The applicants complain, under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of

the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the

Convention, of the revocation of Civic's licences to deal in shares and

to keep shares in trust. These provisions read as follows:

      Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention

      "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of

      any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair

      and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and

      impartial tribunal established by law.  Judgment shall be

      pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from

      all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order

      or national security in a democratic society, where the interests

      of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties

      so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion

      of the court in special circumstances where publicity would

      prejudice the interests of justice."

      Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention

      "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful

      enjoyment of his possessions.  No one shall be deprived of his

      possessions except in the public interest and subject to the

      conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of

      international law.

      The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair

      the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary

      to control the use of property in accordance with the general

      interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions

      or penalties."

      It is clear from Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1) of the Convention

that the Commission may receive an application from a person, non-

governmental organisation or group of individuals only if such person,

non-governmental organisation or group of individuals can claim to be

a victim of a violation, by one of the High Contracting Parties, of the

rights set forth in the Convention or its Protocols. It is undisputed

that the company Civic is not itself a party to the present

proceedings, although the licences in question had been issued to this

company and the revocation order addressed to it and not to the

applicants in the present case. Accordingly the Commission must first

examine whether the decision to revoke the licences affected the

applicants to such an extent that they can claim to be victims within

the meaning of Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1) of the Convention.

      As regards the first applicant the Government submit that he

could only be a victim if it could be established that he was a

majority or controlling shareholder of Civic Holding, Civic's parent

company. In this context the Government submit that it would lead very

far to permit complaints from applicants who hold shares in companies

which in turn own shares in other companies.

      The first applicant maintains that his financial involvement in

Civic was such that he had an interest in the outcome of the

proceedings against Civic sufficient for him to be considered a

"victim" within the meaning of Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1) of the

Convention.

      As a starting-point the Commission recalls that the term "victim"

in Article 25 (Art. 25) denotes the person directly affected by the act

or omission which is at issue (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Eckle judgment of

15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 30, para. 66). Furthermore, the

Commission recalls that it has in several cases considered to what

extent shareholders could claim to be victims within the meaning of

Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention. In two applications, No.

1706/62 (Dec. 4.10.66, Collection 21 p. 33) and No. 10259/83 (Dec.

10.12.84, D.R. 40 p. 170), the Commission held that the applicants who

were both presidents of the companies against which measures were taken

and who both owned 91% of the shares in the respective companies could

claim to be a victim under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention. In

application No. 7598/76 (Kaplan v. United Kingdom, Comm. Report

17.7.80, D.R. 21 p. 5, at p. 23) the Commission found that the

applicant who was managing director and "controller" of the company and

furthermore owned 82% of the shares in a company which owned 99% of the

shares of another company which again owned the company in question,

could claim to be a victim under Article 25 (Art. 25). In effect the

Commission found that the applicants in the above cases were carrying

out their own business through the medium of the company and that they

had a direct personal interest in the subject-matter of the complaint.

      In the case of Yarrow and others (No. 9266/81, Dec. 28.1.83, D.R.

30 p. 155, at p. 185) the Commission held that the applicant

shareholders, who did not hold a majority or controlling interest in

the company in question, were not directly and personally affected by

the measure taken (the nationalisation of a wholly owned subsidiary)

even though this measure undoubtedly reduced the value of their

shareholdings. It concluded therefore that they could not claim to be

victims within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention.

      The Commission has examined the first applicant's situation in

the light of the above case-law. As regards the number of shares owned

by him, the Commission recalls that he did not own any shares in Civic

but in the parent company Civic Holding and that his shareholding,

according to him, amounted to 578.320 shares which corresponded to a

total of 260.350.000 votes, or approximately 36.2% of the total votes.

The Commission has not found it necessary to establish whether these

figures are correct in all respects as, even if they are, it has found

that the first applicant cannot claim to be a victim of any violation

of his rights under the Convention.  As regards in particular the

complaint under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention, the Commission

notes that, in contrast to the above-mentioned Kaplan case, the

impugned measures were not taken as a result of any evaluation of the

first applicant's personal situation. As regards in particular the

complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention

it is true that the Commission has previously accepted as a victim a

shareholder claiming that an attack on his right to influence a company

interfered with his property rights (cf. No. 11189/84, Dec. 11.12.86,

D.R. 50 p. 121). However, the revocation of Civic's licences did not

change the first applicant's situation in this respect. In particular

the Commission has not found it established that the applicant was

subjected to any legal or other obligation to sell his shares in Civic

Holding as a result of the revocation of Civic's licences. There

remains, however, the allegation that he was personally affected by the

revocation of Civic's licences as his shares dropped in value due to

this decision. In the circumstances of the present case, in particular

the limited size of the applicant's alleged shareholding, the

Commission finds that his situation in this respect was comparable to

the situation of the applicant shareholders in the above-mentioned case

of Yarrow and others. He cannot therefore, in the Commission's view,

himself claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25)

of the Convention of the revocation of Civic's licences.

      As regards the second applicant the Government maintain that

Civic Holding's and Civic's transfer to the second applicant of their

possible right to damages does not imply a transfer also of the status

of victim. The purpose of the examination under the Convention is not

primarily to establish a right to damages, but to establish whether or

not the applicant has been a victim of a violation of the Convention

in any respect. The Government claim that it would not be consistent

with the ideas underlying the Convention to accept that the second

applicant's acquisition of the mere right to damages was equivalent to

a transfer of the status of victim.

      The Government also observe that the second applicant cannot be

considered a victim as the company did not pay anything for the rights

acquired. Otherwise this would imply that the second applicant was

compensated for a damage it had never suffered.

      The second applicant maintains in the first place that the sale

of the shares in question was a necessity in order to minimise the big

losses which resulted from the revocation of Civic's licences. As the

buyer was not willing to pay anything for Civic Holding's and Civic's

possible right to compensation it was considered just and fair that

this right should be transferred to another organ which was capable to

pursue and interested in pursuing the interests of the old

shareholders. The second applicant considers that it would create an

obstacle to the filing of complaints under the Convention if the

acquirer of compensation rights in a case such as the present one would

not be allowed to participate in the proceedings before the Commission.

      The second applicant adds that it is not true that it only stands

to gain from the transfer. It has undertaken to pay any compensation

received to those persons who were the real victims of the impugned

decision, namely the shareholders in Civic Holding, by 1 December 1987.

      Having regard to the case-law referred to above the Commission

finds that a transfer of the status of victim can only be accepted in

special circumstances where special reasons exist (cf. also

No. 8261/78, Kofler v. Italy, Comm. Report 9.10.82, D.R. 30 p. 5). The

Commission does not find that such reasons exist. The mere fact that

the second applicant submits that it is in fact defending the common

interests of the real victims, namely the shareholders of Civic

Holding, is not sufficient to make the second applicant a victim within

the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention (cf. No. 9939/82,

Dec. 4.7.83, D.R. 34 p. 213). In addition, the Commission has not found

it established that the real victims, i.e. Civic and possibly its

owners, were in fact prevented from lodging themselves the present

complaints with the Commission (cf. the above-mentioned Yarrow case,

D.R. 30 p. 155, at p. 185).

      It follows that, as regards the alleged violations of Article 6

para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(P1-1) to the Convention, neither applicant fulfils the victim

requirement set out in Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention.

Accordingly this part of the application is incompatible, ratione

personae, with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected

in accordance with Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

      At the hearing before the Commission on 2 July 1992, the second

applicant alternatively maintained that the real applicants were in

fact the old shareholders of Civil Holding and that Cifond only acted

as their legal representative. The company also produced affidavits

attesting to the correctness of this assertion in respect of some 52%

of Civic Holding's old shareholders, representing approximately 62% of

the total voting power in the company.

      Even assuming that such a majority group of shareholders may be

considered as "victim" for the purposes of Article 25 (Art. 25) of the

Convention, the Commission cannot in the circumstances of the present

case find that this new submission is of such a nature as to give it

competence to deal with the merits of the complaints of Civic Holding's

shareholders.

      The original application to the Commission unequivocally stated

that Cifond itself was the victim of the alleged violations of the

Convention and of Protocol No. 1. In no way did it appear from the

documents submitted to the Commission before the hearing that Cifond

was in fact merely acting as a legal representative of Civic Holding's

shareholders. These shareholders only put forward their claim to be

themselves victims of these alleged violations at the hearing on 2 July

1992, i.e. more than six months after the Government's final decision

of 10 December 1987.

      Considering that the Commission may not deal with complaints

submitted more than six months after the final domestic decision

(Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention), it follows that the

complaints presented by Civic Holding's shareholders at the hearing on

2 July 1992 have to be rejected.

      The applicants also invoke Articles 13  (Art. 13) and 14 of the

Convention, the latter in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No.

1 (Art. 14+P1-1) to the Convention.

      Having regard to its above conclusion, however, the Commission

finds that no separate issue arises under these provisions.

      For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,

      DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

   Secretary to the Commission      President of the Commission

         (H.C. KRÜGER)                   (C.A. NØRGAARD)