CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 8 juillet 1993

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                        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)