Search
document

Document text Analytics

de LUKATS v. SWEDEN

Doc ref: 12920/87 • ECHR ID: 001-312

Document date: December 13, 1988

Inbound citations: 1
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 2

de LUKATS v. SWEDEN

Doc ref: 12920/87 • ECHR ID: 001-312

Document date: December 13, 1988

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 12920/87

by L.

against Sweden

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

13 December 1988, the following members being present:

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

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

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 17 February

1987 by L. against Sweden and registered on 12 May 1987 under file No.

12920/87;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The facts of the case, as they appear from the applicant's

submissions, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1939 in Budapest.

He is resident at E., Sweden, and is a horse breeder by profession.

In 1974 the applicant concluded an agreement concerning the

breeding of horses in Hungary. He bought horses for about 650.000 US

dollars, which he imported to Hungary. Subsequently, the agreement

was denounced without valid reasons. The applicant instituted

proceedings before a Board of Arbitration in Hungary. He claimed

compensation in the amount of 3.1 million US dollars inter alia for

confiscation of 73 horses. In April 1981 the Board of Arbitration

delivered a decision on principles in favour of the applicant, but

thereafter all the members of the Board resigned. The dispute was

finally determined on 30 September 1984. The Board's decision is, in

the applicant's opinion, grossly in breach of law.

As a result of the Board's decision 29.000 US dollars were

paid to the applicant in May or June 1985.

In February 1983, the applicant asked the Swedish Prime

Minister to intervene and help him to recover the value of his

confiscated property from Hungary. The applicant has since then made

a number of further requests for such assistance.

On 14 January 1987 the Cabinet of the Prime Minister replied

that it was the opinion of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs that it

was not possible to achieve more through diplomatic measures. It was

recalled that approximately 245.000 SEK had been paid to the applicant.

As regards the applicant's request that Sweden should take up the

applicant's case before the International Court of Justice in the

Hague, it was considered that such an initiative was not justified.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to

the Convention that Sweden has failed to discharge its international

obligations by not securing the recovery of the value of the property

confiscated by Hungarian authorities.

THE LAW

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(P1-1) to the Convention that Sweden has failed to perform its

international obligations under general international law to protect

his property rights.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Art. P1-1) states, inter alia, that

"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful

enjoyment of his possessions ..."

The Commission notes that there has been no direct

interference with the applicant's property by the Swedish authorities.

The alleged expropriation of his property in Hungary is attributed to

the Hungarian authorities and therefore, in itself, not a matter

for which Sweden is responsible under the Convention. The applicant

maintains, however, that Sweden is obliged to take measures against

Hungary to assert and protect his property rights.

The Commission recalls that the Convention does not contain a

right which requires a High Contracting Party to exercise diplomatic

protection or otherwise intervene with the authorities of another

State on behalf of an individual. In particular no such right can be

inferred from Article 1 (Art. 1) of the Convention (cf. No. 7597/76,

Dec. 2.5.78, D.R. 14 p. 117 at 123, 124; No. 10686/83, Dec. 5.10.84,

D.R. 40 p. 291 and No. 12822/87, Dec. 9.12.87, to be published in

D.R.).

The Commission therefore considers that the applicant's

complaint must be rejected as incompatible ratione materiae with

the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27

para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H. C. KRUGER) (C. A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant