THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 41729/05
by Stig LINDER and Mari-Ann LINDER
against Sweden
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17 January 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Elisabet Fura-Sandström,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Egbert Myjer,
Ineta Ziemele,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 November 2005,
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 observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Stig Linder and Mrs Mari-Ann Linder, are Swedish nationals who were both born in 1953 and live in Rydebäck. They are represented before the Court by Mr G. Ljunggren, a lawyer practising in Tranås.
The Swedish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr B. Sjöberg 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, as from 15 February 1991, the first applicant was the sole owner of the company Compactfiber AB (hereinafter referred to as “the company”) and its chief executive, while the second applicant was employed by the company. On 17 January 1992 the company was declared bankrupt.
In 1993 the Tax Authority (Skattemyndigheten) of the County of Jönköping commenced a tax audit of the company which was finalised in March 1995. Its results, set out in an audit report (revisionspromemoria), dated 12 March 1995, showed inter alia that the company’s book-keeping had been seriously deficient and that withdrawals for the salaries paid to the applicants had not been properly accounted for.
The audit report was communicated to the applicants, who were invited to comment on it but failed to do so.
On 7 July 1995, on the basis of the results of the audit report, the Tax Authority decided to revise the assessment of the arrears (eftertaxering) for the tax assessment years 1992 and 1993 for the first applicant and for the tax assessment year 1992 for the second applicant and to increase their taxable incomes and impose tax surcharges on them.
On 17 October 1997 the applicants appealed against the decisions, disputing the Tax Authority’s findings. They stated that there were no grounds for changing their tax returns or imposing tax surcharges on them.
On 25 June 1998 the Tax Authority made the obligatory re-assessment of its decisions of 7 July 1995 but decided not to change them. Following this, it forwarded the appeals to the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) of the County of Jönköping.
The parties made further submissions before the County Administrative Court in which the applicants, with reference to Article 6 of the Convention, claimed that the tax surcharges should be remitted.
On 16 March 2001 the County Administrative Court rejected the applicants’ appeals, upholding the Tax Authority’s decisions in full. As concerned the tax surcharges, it considered that the imposition of such surcharges did not violate the Convention.
On 25 May 2001 the applicants appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) in Jönköping, contesting the lower court’s judgments. In supplementary pleadings, they added that the proceedings had already been of excessive length and that the tax surcharges should therefore be remitted.
In judgments of 2 October 2003 the Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgments and reasoning in full.
On 15 December 2003 the applicants appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten), maintaining their claims and reiterating that they wanted the tax surcharges to be remitted due to the length of the proceedings.
On 18 May 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court refused leave to appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the national proceedings, involving tax surcharges, had been of excessive length, lasting almost ten years. Moreover, they claimed that they had been deprived of proper access to court due to the Tax Authority’s protracted handling of their cases.
THE LAW
By letter dated 7 June 2007 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicants’ representative, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 23 July 2007.
By letter dated 12 October 2007, sent by registered post, the applicants’ representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicants’ observations had expired on 23 July 2007 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ representative’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicants’ representative received this letter on 19 October 2007. However, no response has been received.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing 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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and 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.
Santiago QuesadaBoštjan M. Zupančič
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy