SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 6161/04 
by Gun Ann-Mari MATHIASSON 
against Sweden

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9 May 2006 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr J.-P. Costa, President
 Mr A.B. Baka
 Mr I. Cabral Barreto
 Mrs A. Mularoni
 Mrs E. Fura-Sandström
 Ms D. Jočienė, 
 Mr D. Popović, judges,

and  Mrs  S. Dollé, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 February 2004,

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 applicant, Ms Gun Ann-Mari Mathiasson, is a Swedish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Malmö. She is represented before the Court by Mr A. E. Broch, a lawyer practising in Gibraltar.

The respondent Government are represented by their Agent Mr M. Falk of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

In a decision of 1 June 1994 the Tax Authority (skattemyndigheten) of the County of Malmöhus made a discretionary assessment (skönstaxering) of the applicant’s income from business and value-added tax (VAT) for the tax assessment year 1993. It considered that the applicant’s book keeping for her business had been defective and that she had made incorrect calculations as to the income of her business and its VAT. It also decided to impose tax surcharges on her amounting to SEK 36,220 (EUR 3,850).

In a re-assessment decision of 14 February 1995, the Tax Authority reduced the assessment and the surcharges. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed before various levels of jurisdiction, the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) refusing the applicant’s request for leave to appeal on 12 August 2003.

COMPLAINT

The applicant originally complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of proceedings was excessive.

THE LAW

On 3 February 2006 the Court received the following declaration from the Swedish Government, signed by the Agent of the Government on 23 January 2006 and by the applicant’s representative on 28 January 2006:

“On 16 February 2004 Ms Gun Ann-Mari Mathiasson (“the applicant”) lodged application 6161/04 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 110,000 (one hundred and ten thousand)1 to the applicant. The amount will be paid to her counsel, Mr Alexander E. Broch, who has been authorized by the applicant to receive payment on her 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 she 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 Government at a Cabinet meeting.”

The settlement was approved by the Swedish Government on 23 February 2006.

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). 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.

S. Dollé J.-P. Costa 
 Registrar President

1 Around EUR 11,760


MATHIASSON v. SWEDEN DECISION


MATHIASSON v. SWEDEN DECISION