SECOND SECTION
FINAL DECISION
Application no. 34496/04
by Ingemar EKELÖF and Monica EKELÖF-VESTIN
against Sweden
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 24 October 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrR. Türmen,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström,
MsD. Jočienė,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 September 2004,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.
Having regard to the partial decision of 28 March 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Ingemar Ekelöf and Mrs Monica Ekelöf-Vestin, are Swedish nationals who were born in 1956 and 1970, respectively, and live in Stockholm. They are represented before the Court by Mr J. Thörnhammar, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.
The respondent Government are represented by their Agent Ms I. Kalmerborn of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants are a married couple and the sole owners of the company L E Aktiepåsen AB, through which, in 1992, they bought a ship, the Freja. The ship functioned as a restaurant/bar which the applicants continued to run in the form of a registered company, Restaurang Frejas Holme AB (hereinafter referred to as “the company”).
In 1994, the Tax Authority (skattemyndigheten) of the County of Stockholm commenced a tax audit of the company and, in December 1995, it sent a preliminary consideration to the applicants in which it stated that, based on information from the tax audit, it was minded to alter the tax returns for the tax assessment years 1993 and 1994 for the company, as well as for the applicants, and to impose tax surcharges on them.
The applicants objected to any changes to their tax returns but, on 4 October 1996, the Board decided to follow the preliminary consideration, except for some minor changes.
The applicants appealed against the decisions, disputing the Tax Authority’s findings. They maintained that there were no grounds for changing their tax returns or imposing tax surcharges on them.
On 7 October 1997 the Tax Authority made the obligatory re-assessment of its decisions of 4 October 1996 but decided not to change them. Following this, it forwarded the appeals to the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) of the County of Stockholm.
On 23 June 1999 the County Administrative Court upheld the Tax Authority’s decisions, except on one point where it granted the applicants’ appeal and lowered the tax surcharges accordingly.
Upon further appeal, the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) in Stockholm upheld the lower court’s judgments and reasoning in full and, on 31 March 2004, the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) refused leave to appeal.
COMPLAINT
The applicants originally complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the national proceedings was excessive.
THE LAW
The applicants originally complained that the national proceedings had been of excessive length, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. However, in a letter of 4 September 2006, they informed the Court that they withdrew their case and requested that it be struck out of the list of cases before the Court. By letter of 22 September 2006 the Swedish Government stated that they had no objection to the application being struck out of the list.
The Court notes that the applicants no longer intend to pursue their case and that the Government have no objections against it being struck out. In these circumstances, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court is of the opinion that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. 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. Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy