EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Application No. 14369/88
Noviflora Sweden AB
against
Sweden
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 8 July 1993)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PART I: STATEMENT OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
PART II: SOLUTION REACHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
INTRODUCTION
1 This Report relates to the application introduced under
Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Noviflora Sweden AB against Sweden
on 29 April 1988. It was registered on 8 November 1988 under file
No. 14369/88.
The applicant, a limited liability company, was represented by
Jan Axelsson, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.
The Government of Sweden were represented by their Agent,
Mr. Håkan Berglin and subsequently by Ms. Eva Jagander, Ministry for
Foreign Affairs, Stockholm.
2 On 12 October 1992 the Commission declared admissible the
applicant company's complaints under Article 8 of the Convention,
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the
Convention in conjunction with the first two mentioned Articles. The
remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. The Commission
then proceeded to carry out its tasks under Article 28 para. 1 of the
Convention which provides as follows:
"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to
it:
a. it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake
together with the representatives of the parties an
examination of the petition and, if need be, an
investigation, for the effective conduct of which the
States concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities,
after an exchange of views with the Commission;
b. it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of
the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly
settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human
Rights as defined in this Convention."
3 The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly
settlement of the case and on 8 July 1993 it adopted this Report,
which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, is
confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.
The following members were present when the Report was adopted:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
S. TRECHSEL
F. ERMACORA
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. J.-C. GEUS
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
G.B. REFFI
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
B. CONFORTI
PART I
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
4 The applicant is a limited liability company with its
headquarters in Stockholm. One of the board members (D.J.) is the owner
of a law firm with its headquarters at Södertälje. A branch office of
the law firm is located at the same address as the applicant company's
headquarters in Stockholm.
5 In relation to an investigation of tax offences suspected to have
been committed by the applicant company's affiliate in the Netherlands
searches were, on 2 November 1987, conducted at the applicant company's
headquarters in Stockholm and subsequently at the headquarters of the
law firm at Södertälje. In connection with the latter search documents
pertaining to the applicant company and its affiliate were seized.
6 The lawfulness of the seizure was contested, the applicant
company arguing that D.J. had received seized documents from the
applicant company in his capacity as advocate and that they were
therefore protected from seizure under Chapter 27, Section 2 of the
Code of Judicial Procedure (rättegångsbalken). On 6 November 1987 the
District Court (tingsrätten) of Stockholm concluded, however, that the
seizure had been lawful.
7 Following the applicant company's appeal to the Svea Court of
Appeal (Svea hovrätt) the State Prosecutor for Special Cases
(statsåklagaren för speciella mål) lifted the seizure and returned the
documents. In the light of this the appeal was dismissed on 25 March
1988.
8 The applicant company appealed to the Supreme Court (högsta
domstolen), which on 6 October 1988 quashed the decision of the Svea
Court of Appeal and referred the case back for a new examination.
9 On 14 September 1989 the Svea Court of Appeal concluded that the
seizure had been unlawful. It further found that prior to the lifting
of the seizure photocopies had been made of certain documents.
10 On 14 September 1990 the Supreme Court quashed the decision of
the Svea Court of Appeal and limited its own examination to the
question whether the seizure had been lawful as regards the photocopied
documents. The Supreme Court concluded that in this respect the seizure
had been unlawful.
11 Before the Commission the applicant company complained that the
seizure and subsequent measures related thereto were not carried out
in accordance with the law, as required by Article 8 of the Convention,
that they violated its property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No.
1 to the Convention and that it had no effective remedy within the
meaning of Article 13 of the Convention against those violations.
PART II
SOLUTION REACHED
12 Following the decision on the admissibility of the application,
the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view
to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 28 para.
1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals
they wished to make.
13 In accordance with the usual practice, the Secretary, acting on
the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the
possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.
14 Following an exchange of letters between the parties the Agent
of the Government, by letter of 23 June 1993, submitted the following
agreement reached between the applicant company and the Government:
"SETTLEMENT
On 12 October 1992 the European Commission of Human Rights
declared partly admissible and partly inadmissible application
No. 14369/88 lodged by Noviflora Sweden AB against Sweden.
The Swedish Government and Noviflora Sweden AB have now reached
the following friendly settlement, on the basis of respect for
human rights as defined in the European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in order to
terminate the proceedings before the Commission.
a) The Government will pay the sum of SEK 50,000 to Noviflora
Sweden AB;
b) The Government will pay the applicant company's costs and
expenses in the amount of SEK 120,000;
c) Noviflora Sweden AB declares that it has no further claims
on the Swedish State based on the facts of the above application.
__________
This settlement is dependent upon the formal approval of the
Swedish Government at a Cabinet meeting.
Stockholm, 24 May 1993 Stockholm, 26 May 1993
(signed) (signed)
Eva Jagander Jan Axelsson
Agent of the Swedish Counsel for the
Government applicant company"
15 On 10 June 1993 the above agreement was formally approved by the
Government.
16 At its session on 8 July 1993, the Commission noted that the
parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement.
It further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the
Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured
on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.
17 For these reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy