THIRD SECTION
FINAL DECISION
Application no. 19402/03
by PROVECTUS I STOCKHOLM AB and Kent LÖWENBERG
against Sweden
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 27 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Elisabet Fura-Sandström,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Egbert Myjer,
Ineta Ziemele,
Ann Power, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 June 2003,
Having regard to the partial decision of 16 January 2007,
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 formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The first applicant is a limited company, Provectus i Stockholm AB, and the second applicant is its sole owner, Mr K. Löwenberg, who is a Swedish national, born in 1943 and living in Saltsjö-Duvnäs. They were represented before the Court by Mr J. Thörnhammar, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.
The Swedish Government (“the Government”) were 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.
In December 1992 the Tax Authority (skattemyndigheten) of the County of Stockholm decided to commence a tax audit of the first applicant and the results of the audit were set out in the Tax Authority’s audit report (revisionspromemoria) of 31 July 1995 which was communicated to the applicants. Based on the findings of the report, the Tax Authority, in August 1995, decided to alter the first applicant’s tax return for the tax assessment year 1992 and to impose tax surcharges.
The first applicant opposed the findings and the Tax Authority’s decision but, on 21 December 1995, the Tax Authority decided not to change its original decision.
Upon appeal, the Tax Authority made the obligatory re-assessment of its decision but decided not to change it. Following this, it forwarded the appeal to the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) of the County of Stockholm.
Since the Tax Authority had commenced the tax audit of the first applicant, it also examined the tax returns submitted by the first applicant for the following tax assessment years (1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996). It decided to alter them in accordance with its findings from the audit, with the consequences it had for each subsequent year. However, no tax surcharges were imposed.
The first applicant disputed the Tax Authority’s findings. However, since the Tax Authority maintained its decisions, the first applicant appealed to the County Administrative Court. On 15 March 1996 the Tax Authority made the obligatory re-assessment of its decisions but decided not to change them. It then forwarded the appeals to the court.
As the second applicant was the sole owner of the first applicant, as well as its chief executive and the only member of the board, the audit report also entailed certain consequences for him.
Thus, on 5 October 1995, the Tax Authority decided to revise his tax return for the 1993 tax assessment year by increasing his taxable income while, at the same time, decreasing his income from capital gains by the same amount. Moreover, it imposed tax surcharges on him.
The second applicant objected to any changes being made to his tax return and to the imposition of tax surcharges. The Tax Authority maintained its decision, against which the applicant appealed.
On 8 January 1997 the Tax Authority made the obligatory re-assessment of its decision of 5 October 1995 but decided not to change it. It then forwarded the appeal to the County Administrative Court.
On 29 June 1998 the County Administrative Court rejected all the appeals in well-reasoned judgments.
The applicants appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) in Stockholm which, on 6 July 2001, upheld the lower court’s judgments.
On 23 December 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) refused leave to appeal in all cases.
COMPLAINT
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1of the Convention that the national proceedings for the tax assessment year 1992 for the first applicant and the tax assessment year 1993 for the second applicant had been of excessive length.
THE LAW
On 23 January 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Swedish Government, signed by the Agent of the Government on 8 January 2008 and by the applicants’ representative on 17 January 2008:
“On 16 June 2003, Provectus i Stockholm AB and Mr Kent Löwenberg (“the applicants”) lodged application no. 19402/03 against Sweden with the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”). In a partial decision of 16 January 2007 as to the admissibility of the application, the Court decided to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaint concerning the length of certain administrative proceedings and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.
The Swedish Government (“the Government”) and the applicants 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 Court.
a) The Government will pay, ex gratia, to the applicants jointly the sum of EUR 7,000 (seven thousand), to be converted into Swedish kronor at the rate applicable on the date of payment. The amount will be paid to their counsel, Mr Jan Thörnhammar, who has been authorised by the applicants to receive payment on their behalf. Execution of payment will take place when the Government has received the Court’s decision to strike the case out of its list of cases.
b) The applicants declare that they have 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 Government at a Cabinet meeting.”
The settlement was approved by the Government on 7 February 2008.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). 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 QuesadaJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy