CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 1 juillet 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s84582066 { width:4.99pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .s5EA978D4 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .sA3B71503 { width:197.8pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 44830/98 by   FRÖDINGE GRUS & ÅKERI AB against Sweden The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 1   July   2003 as a Chamber composed of   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää ,   Mrs   E. Palm ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   M. Fischbach ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   L. Garlicki, judges , and   Mr   M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 1 July 1998, Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Frödinge Grus & Åkeri AB, is a Swedish limited liability company. It is represented before the Court by Mr S. Godåker, Blackstad. The respondent Government are represented by Ms I. Kalmerborn, Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 17 December 1991 the applicant company instituted civil proceedings against another company, claiming pecuniary compensation for work performed for that company, consisting of crushing and removal of gravel belonging to the latter. The applicant’s claim was not in dispute between the parties; instead the dispute concerned the question whether the defendant company had a counter-claim which it could use as a set-off against the applicant’s claim. The set-off claim related to gravel which the applicant allegedly had extracted but not paid for. By a judgment of 24 May 1994 the District Court ( tingsrätten ) of Västervik, rejecting the defendant company’s set-off claim, granted the applicant’s claim in full and awarded it 31,337.40 Swedish kronor (SEK) in compensation. The defendant company appealed and, by a judgment of 17 May 1995, the Göta Court of Appeal ( Göta hovrätt ) partly accepted the set-off claim and reduced the applicant’s compensation to SEK   7,604.40. On 16 January 1998, upon the applicant’s appeal, the Supreme Court ( Högsta domstolen ) refused leave to appeal. THE LAW The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 17 December 1991 and ended on 16 January 1998 with the Supreme Court’s decision to refuse the applicant leave to appeal. They therefore lasted six years and one month. According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government, while having no objection as to the admissibility of the application, leave it to the Court to decide whether the applicant’s case was determined within a reasonable time. The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law on the question of “reasonable time” (the complexity of the case, the applicant’s conduct and that of the competent authorities), and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is required. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.   Michael O’Boyle   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President