Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)61[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag and Vulic against Sweden
(Application No. 36985/97, judgment of 23 July 2002, final on 21 May 2003)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention” and “the Court”),
Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;
Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern the lack of access to a court to determine criminal charges in taxation proceedings (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1) and the excessive length of proceedings (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with Sweden's obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;
Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgment, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of
- individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- general measures preventing, similar violations;
Having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) and considering the decision taken at the 914th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (23 February 2005),
DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and
DECIDES to close the examination of this case.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)61
Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of
Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag and Vulic against Sweden
Introductory case summary
The case concerns the breach of the applicants' right of access to court in the determination of the merits of criminal charges brought against them because of allegedly incorrect tax declarations. On 4 September 1995 the first applicant (a taxi company) requested reconsideration of the surcharges decided by the tax authority. On 18 December 1995, the second applicant (the company's president) appealed against the tax authority's decision. The facts are very similar to those of Janosevic against Sweden (see Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)59), with the exception that, at the date of the first applicant's dissolution, the question of the merits had already been pending before the County Administrative Court for two and a half years.
The European Court considered that the tax authority as well as the County Administrative Court had failed to act with the required urgency and thereby unduly delayed the determination of the issues by a court, depriving the applicant of effective access to a court (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1).
The case also concerns the excessive length of the proceedings. In respect of the first applicant, proceedings began on 20 February 1995, when the tax authority informed the company of its intention to impose surcharges. The proceedings on the merits of these surcharges were still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court at the date of the European Court's judgment (almost seven years and five months). As regards the second applicant, the proceedings started on 11 August 1995, the date of the tax authority's report including in particular the surcharges, and ended on 3 May 2002 (six years and nine months) (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1).
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
-
20 000 EUR
20 000 EUR
40 000 EUR
Paid on 14/08/2003 and 21/08/2003
b) Individual measures
Acceleration of the pending proceedings concerning the first applicant was requested, particularly to remedy the applicant's lack of effective access to a court. The Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the first applicant's appeal on 4 March 2004. It noted, first, that a company that had been dissolved in bankruptcy lacked capacity to be a party to legal proceedings but that some exceptions to this rule had been made in Swedish law; secondly, that the Supreme Administrative Court had found that by virtue of the applicability of Article 6 of the Convention to proceedings concerning tax surcharges, a taxpayer always had the right to have such a decision tried by an administrative court, even if the taxpayer in question was a company that had been dissolved and lacked legal capacity, but that this did not entail a right to a judicial examination of such cases at more than one instance; and finally, that the judicial examination of the first applicant's appeal by the County Administrative Court had been adequate. In consequence, the Administrative Court of Appeal found that the applicant's right of access to a court had not been violated and that there was no reason to grant the company the capacity to pursue legal proceedings further.
The applicant sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court refused leave to appeal on 22 July 2004. The judgment of 22 May 2003 has thereby become final and the proceedings have been terminated.
II.General measures
This case presents strong similarities to the case of Janosevic against Sweden (judgment of 23 July 2002, see final Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)59).
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Sweden has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46 paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 April 2007 at the 992nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy