CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 15 mai 1996

.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 }                          Application No. 27328/95                       by Brigitte STALLKNECHT                       against Sweden         The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 15 May 1996, the following members being present:              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE, Acting President            MM.    G. JÖRUNDSSON                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  F. MARTINEZ                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  P. LORENZEN              Ms.    M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 12 April 1995 by Brigitte Stallknecht against Sweden and registered on 15 May 1995 under file No. 27328/95;         Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 5 March 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 3 April 1996;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:     THE FACTS         The applicant, a Swedish citizen born in 1942, resides at Rimforsa.         The application concerns a dispute between the applicant and the National Board of Agriculture (Statens jordbruksnämnd) as to who was the rightful recipient of certain farming subsidies. The subsidies were granted for the period 1 July 1990 - 30 June 1991 and paid on 31 January 1991 to the bankruptcy estate of the previous owner of the farm in question. Claiming that the subsidies were due to her, as she was running the farm during the above period, the applicant brought proceedings against the Board, first in the ordinary courts and thereafter in the administrative courts. The applicant's action was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction by the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) on 22 November 1994 and by the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) on 22 November 1995.         The applicant alleges that her right to a determination by a court under Article 6 or, in the alternative, Article 13 of the Convention has been violated. She maintains that the right to the subsidies at issue is a civil right within the meaning of Article 6.         On 19 October 1995 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.         By letter of 5 March 1996, the Government informed the Commission that a friendly settlement agreement had been reached between the parties on 20 February 1996. The terms of the agreement are as follows:   (Translation)         "1.   The Government will pay compensation of two hundred       thousand (200,000) SEK, all included, to the [the       applicant].         2.   [The applicant] declares that she has no further claims       in respect of the alleged violation of Article 6 or,       alternatively, Article 13 of the Convention in the case in       question.         3.   The parties agree that [the applicant] shall withdraw       her complaints so that the case can be struck out of the       Commission's list of cases."         The agreement was approved by the Government by decision of 29 February 1996.         By letter of 3 April 1996, the applicant informed the Commission of her wish to withdraw the present application following the friendly settlement agreement. She further stated that the agreed compensation had been paid by the Government.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION         Having regard to Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention, the Commission notes that the applicant does not intend to pursue her petition. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 30 para. 1 in fine, the Commission finds no circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which require the continuation of the examination of the application. The Commission, therefore, accedes to the applicant's request to withdraw her case.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.            Secretary to                      Acting President       the Second Chamber                of the Second Chamber         (M.-T. SCHOEPFER)                      (G.H. THUNE)