CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 13 décembre 1988

.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 }      AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF     Application No. 12920/87 by L. against Sweden             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 13 December 1988, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      J.A. FROWEIN                      S. TRECHSEL                      G. SPERDUTI                      E. BUSUTTIL                      G. JÖRUNDSSON                      A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                      A. WEITZEL                      J.C. SOYER                      H.G. SCHERMERS                      H. VANDENBERGHE                 Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 MM.   F. MARTINEZ                      C.L. ROZAKIS                 Mrs.   J. LIDDY                   Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission             Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 17 February 1987 by L. against Sweden and registered on 12 May 1987 under file No. 12920/87;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:     THE FACTS           The facts of the case, as they appear from the applicant's submissions, may be summarised as follows.           The applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1939 in Budapest. He is resident at E., Sweden, and is a horse breeder by profession.           In 1974 the applicant concluded an agreement concerning the breeding of horses in Hungary.   He bought horses for about 650.000 US dollars, which he imported to Hungary.   Subsequently, the agreement was denounced without valid reasons.   The applicant instituted proceedings before a Board of Arbitration in Hungary.   He claimed compensation in the amount of 3.1 million US dollars inter alia for confiscation of 73 horses.   In April 1981 the Board of Arbitration delivered a decision on principles in favour of the applicant, but thereafter all the members of the Board resigned.   The dispute was finally determined on 30 September 1984.   The Board's decision is, in the applicant's opinion, grossly in breach of law.           As a result of the Board's decision 29.000 US dollars were paid to the applicant in May or June 1985.           In February 1983, the applicant asked the Swedish Prime Minister to intervene and help him to recover the value of his confiscated property from Hungary.   The applicant has since then made a number of further requests for such assistance.           On 14 January 1987 the Cabinet of the Prime Minister replied that it was the opinion of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs that it was not possible to achieve more through diplomatic measures.   It was recalled that approximately 245.000 SEK had been paid to the applicant. As regards the applicant's request that Sweden should take up the applicant's case before the International Court of Justice in the Hague, it was considered that such an initiative was not justified.     COMPLAINT           The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that Sweden has failed to discharge its international obligations by not securing the recovery of the value of the property confiscated by Hungarian authorities.     THE LAW           The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention that Sweden has failed to perform its international obligations under general international law to protect his property rights.           Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Art. P1-1) states, inter alia, that           "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful         enjoyment of his possessions ..."           The Commission notes that there has been no direct interference with the applicant's property by the Swedish authorities. The alleged expropriation of his property in Hungary is attributed to the Hungarian authorities and therefore, in itself, not a matter for which Sweden is responsible under the Convention.   The applicant maintains, however, that Sweden is obliged to take measures against Hungary to assert and protect his property rights.           The Commission recalls that the Convention does not contain a right which requires a High Contracting Party to exercise diplomatic protection or otherwise intervene with the authorities of another State on behalf of an individual.   In particular no such right can be inferred from Article 1 (Art. 1) of the Convention (cf.   No. 7597/76, Dec. 2.5.78, D.R. 14 p. 117 at 123, 124; No. 10686/83, Dec. 5.10.84, D.R. 40 p. 291 and No. 12822/87, Dec. 9.12.87, to be published in D.R.).           The Commission therefore considers that the applicant's complaint must be rejected as incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.       Secretary to the Commission                President of the Commission               (H. C. KRUGER)                             (C. A. NØRGAARD)