CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 24 août 2004

.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 } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s1E56514F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s58B8AE49 { clear:both; mso-column-break-before:always } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s3287A2A2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.5pt; font-size:10pt } .s484F88D8 { width:10.61pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s19E8F3B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:28.95pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 61078/00 by Johnny NILSSON against Sweden The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 24   August 2004 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego ,   Mrs   E. Fura-Sandström ,   Ms   L. Mijović, judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 July 2000, 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 declaration accepting a friendly settlement of the case. Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Johnny Nilsson, is a Swedish national who was born in 1962 and lives in Sösdala. He was represented before the Court by Mr P. Malmer, a lawyer practising in Hässleholm. The respondent Government were represented by Ms I. Kalmerborn, Agent. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 16 November 1981, during his military service, the applicant injured his back when he tried to move a canon together with three other recruits.   The injury, which rendered it impossible for the applicant to work, was classified as a work related injury and he was granted compensation in accordance with the Personal Injury Protection Act ( lagen om personskadeskydd ) for the period from 26 January 1982 to 31 July 1982. However, upon appeal the period was extended until 24 January 1983 and, upon further appeal, for a period also after that date. In 1990 the applicant applied to the Social Insurance Office ( försäkringskassan -hereinafter “the Office”) of the County of Kristianstad for life annuity. On 12 September 1991 the Office granted him a life annuity corresponding to a yearly amount of SEK 127,700 for the period from 29 January 1990 to 30 June 1992. The applicant appealed against the decision to the County Administrative Court ( länsrätten ) of the County of Kristianstad, requesting that he be granted a life annuity for the period from 1 July 1982 to 30 June 1993 and with a higher amount than the Office had granted him. On 18 December 1992 the court rejected the appeal. Upon further appeal to the Administrative Court of Appeal ( kammarrätten ) of Göteborg, the applicant maintained his claims. By judgment of 29 September 1995, the court rejected the appeal in so far as it concerned the applicant’s request for an increase in his life annuity for the period specified by the Office. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court ( Regeringsrätten ). In a decision of 15 September 1999 the court found that the Administrative Court of Appeal should have held an oral hearing and remitted the case to the lower court for fresh examination. On 28 March 2000, after having held an oral hearing, the Administrative Court of Appeal found that the applicant was entitled to a life annuity corresponding to a yearly amount of SEK 170,700 for the period from 29 January 1990 to 30 June 1992. The case was then handed over to the Office for it to arrange for payment. Between October 1992 and December 2003, the Office issued a number of further decisions, some which were appealed to the administrative courts, the final result   of which was that the applicant was granted a life annuity as from 7 June 1984 and onwards and to a higher amount than previously awarded.    COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the case concerning his life annuity was not determined within a reasonable time. PROCEDURE On 9 December 2003 the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the application should be given to the Government of Sweden and that the Government should be invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. On 5 March 2004 the Government filed their observations. They further informed the Court that they had contacted the applicant’s representative with a view to discussing the terms of a friendly settlement. THE LAW On 12 May 2004 the Court received the following declaration from the Swedish Government, signed by the Agent of the Government on 7 May 2004 and by the applicant’s representative on 10 May 2004: “On 4 September 2000, Mr Johnny Nilsson (“the applicant”) lodged application no. 61078/00 against Sweden with the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”). The Swedish Government (“the Government”) and the applicant 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 , the sum of SEK 230,000 (two hundred and thirty thousand) [1] to the applicant. The amount will be paid to his counsel, Mr Per Malmer, who has been authorized by the applicant to receive payment on his behalf. Execution of payment will take place when the Government has received the Court’s decision striking the case out of its list of cases. b)        The applicant declares that he has no further claims on the Swedish State based on the facts of the above application concerning all aspects of the proceedings relating to the matter of his entitlement to a life annuity pursuant to the 1977 National Personal Injury Protection Act ( lagen om statligt personskadeskydd ) for the period 1 July 1982 until the date of this settlement. This settlement is dependent upon formal approval of the Government at a cabinet meeting.” This settlement was approved by the Swedish Government on 3 June 2004. The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties (Article 39 of the Convention). 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). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Michael O’Boyle   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President [1] EUR 25,300 according to the exchange rate on 10 May 2004