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)