CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 4 juillet 1994

.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. 14943/89                                Martin Denev                                   against                                   Sweden                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                          (adopted on 4 July 1994)                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page   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 Mr. Martin Denev against Sweden on 14 April 1989. It was registered on 20 April 1989 under file No. 14943/89.         The Government of Sweden were represented by their Agent, Mrs. Eva Jagander.   2.     On 11 October 1993 the Commission declared the application partly admissible and partly inadmissible. It then proceeded to carry out its task 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 4 July 1994 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                  A. WEITZEL                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            MM.    F. MARTINEZ                  C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  J. MUCHA                  E. KONSTANTINOV                  D. SVÁBY                  G. RESS                                   PART I                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS                                      I   4.     On 2 January 1980 the applicant applied to the Patent and Registration Office (patent- och registreringsverket), hereinafter called the PRO, for the registration of a patent which concerned a construction to be used in connection with the exploitation of wind power. On 18 September 1985 the PRO rejected the applicant's application. The applicant appealed against this decision to the Court of Patent Appeals (patentbesvärsrätten) on 15 November 1985 but withdrew his appeal on 29 December 1988. The Court of Patent Appeals struck the case off its list of cases on 12 January 1989.                                     II   5.     On 1 October 1981 the applicant applied to the PRO for the registration of a patent which concerned the exploitation of wind power in connection with a construction which could be used as both an aircraft and a boat. The PRO rejected the application on 18 September 1985. The applicant appealed against this decision to the Court of Patent Appeals on 18 November 1985 but withdrew the application on 29 December 1988. The Court of Patent Appeals struck the case off its list of cases on 12 January 1989.                                     III   6.     On 5 October 1982 the applicant applied to the PRO for the registration of a patent which concerned a construction lighter than air, to be used in connection with wind power stations, roofs and solar collectors, as well as for the protection of plants and for transports. The PRO rejected the application on 27 February 1985. The applicant appealed against this decision to the Court of Patent Appeals on 26 April 1985 but withdrew the appeal on 29 December 1988. The Court of Patent Appeals struck the case off its list of cases on 12 January 1989.   7.     Before the Commission the applicant complained that his patent applications had not been determined within a reasonable time as required by Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.                                   PART II                              SOLUTION REACHED   8.     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.   9.     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. Following an exchange of correspondence, the applicant submitted the following telex which arrived on 31 January 1994:         "APPLICATION 14943/89 DENEV NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES CASE 1       20,000 CASE 3 20,000 EXTREMELY LONGLASTING FEELINGS OF       UNCERTAINTY COSTS 10,000 SEK                                          MARTIN DENEV"   10.    By letter of 28 February 1994 the Agent of the respondent Government submitted as follows:         "I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your       letter of 3 February 1994 enclosing the applicant's       proposal to settle the case on the basis of the payment by       the Swedish Government of a sum totalling 50,000 SEK. I       wish to inform you that the Government is prepared to       accept the applicant's proposal on the assumption that he       has no further claims on the Swedish State based on the       facts of the above application. Any settlement, however, is       dependent upon the formal approval of the Government at a       Cabinet meeting."   11.    A copy of the Government's letter was transmitted to the applicant by registered mail on 1 March 1994. He was furthermore informed that in the light of the parties' reactions it was assumed that he agreed with the Government's understanding that he had no further claims in relation to the facts of this case and he was requested to confirm this before 20 March 1994.   12.    The Commission received no reply to this letter and a reminder, sent by registered mail on 25 March 1994, was returned with an indication that the applicant had moved.   13.    By letter of 4 May 1994 the Agent of the Government submitted that the Government had approved the settlement on 21 April 1994.   14.    A copy of the Government's letter was transmitted to the applicant's new address by registered mail on 19 May 1994. He received the letter on 31 May 1994, but did not reply. On 15 June 1994, however, the Government submitted a copy of a letter from the applicant by which he requested the payment of 50,000 SEK as approved by the Government on 21 April 1994.   15.    At its session on 4 July 1994, the Commission considered the state of the proceedings of the application in the light of the parties' above submissions. It found 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.   16.    For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.   Secretary to the Commission             President of the Commission          (H.C. KRÜGER)                          (C.A. NØRGAARD)