THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 16753/11
DRAUPNER UNIVERSAL AB and JURIK
against Sweden
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6 December 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Helen Keller, President,
Pere Pastor Vilanova,
Alena Poláčková, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 January 2011,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The first applicant, Draupner Universal AB, is a Swedish limited liability company registered in Stockholm. The second applicant, Mr Toivo Jurik, is a Swedish national who was born in 1942 and resides in Chantilly, France. They were represented before the Court by Mr C. Lindstrand, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.
The Swedish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Ms G. Isaksson and Ms H. Kristiansson, Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that they had been denied an oral hearing in proceedings before the administrative courts concerning the exemption of documents from a tax audit. The second applicant further complained that the tax authorities’ search and seizure of property at his private dwelling had breached his rights under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. He also alleged that he had been denied access to a court in this matter, constituting a violation of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.
The applicants’ complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application on 13 February 2015.
By a letter of 9 March 2015 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that the applicants wanted to withdraw the application. Noting that the Court had taken the position in the case of Ruminski v. Sweden ((dec.), no. 10404/10, § 44, 21 May 2013) that, following a judgment by the Swedish Supreme Court of 3 December 2009, the existence of a domestic remedy for claims for compensation relating to alleged violations of the Convention must be considered sufficiently clear, he admitted that this remedy had not yet been used by the applicants, although they had lodged the present application after the mentioned judgment.
THE LAW
The Court notes that the applicants do not intend to pursue their application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Done in English and notified in writing on 12 January 2017.
Fatoş AracıHelen Keller
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy