EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
SECOND CHAMBER
Application No. 24483/94
Fred Söderström
against
Sweden
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 3 December 1996)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
PART I : STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
PART II : SOLUTION REACHED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
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 Fred Söderström against Sweden on
7 March 1994. It was registered on 28 June 1994 under file
No. 24483/94.
The Government of Sweden were represented by their Agent,
Mr. Carl Henrik Ehrenkrona.
2. On 28 February 1996 the Commission (Second Chamber) declared
admissible the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention concerning
the length of proceedings relating to property rights. It then
proceeded to carry out its task 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 (Second Chamber) found that the parties had
reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 3 December 1996 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:
Mrs. G.H. THUNE, President
MM. J.-C. GEUS
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
F. MARTINEZ
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
E. BIELIUNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
PART I
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
4. The applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1929 and resident at
Lindesberg.
5. On 14 May 1986 the applicant instituted proceedings before the
County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen), claiming a hereditary
tenancy right (åborätt) to a piece of property in Lindesberg. After
having conducted an extensive investigation of the matter, the Board
rejected the applicant's claim by decision of 19 March 1990. The
applicant appealed to the National Judicial Board for Public Lands and
Funds (Kammarkollegiet), which upheld the County Administrative Board's
decision on 19 December 1991. The applicant's further appeal was
rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) on
1 June 1994.
6. Before the Commission the applicant complained under Article 6
of the Convention that the case was not determined within a reasonable
time.
PART II
SOLUTION REACHED
7. Following the decision on the admissibility of the application,
the Commission (Second Chamber) 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.
8. In accordance with the usual practice, the Chamber Secretary,
acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to
explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.
9. The parties indicated their willingness to reach a friendly
settlement and the respondent Government made proposals on
17 April 1996. Following an exchange of letters between the Commission
and the parties, the Government, by letter of 11 September 1996,
informed the Commission that the parties had reached a friendly
settlement on the following terms:
(Translation)
"1. The Government will pay compensation of 35,000 Swedish
crowns, all included, to [the applicant].
2. [The applicant] declares that he has no further claims based
on the facts to which his complaints to the Commission refer.
The validity of this friendly settlement ... is dependent on the
approval of the Government."
The settlement, which had been signed by the Agent of the
Government on 13 August 1996 and by the applicant on 15 August 1996,
was approved by the Government by decision of 29 August 1996. The
compensation amount was paid to the applicant on 5 September 1996.
10. At its session on 3 December 1996, the Commission (Second
Chamber) 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.
11. For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.
M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE
Secretary President
to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy