PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 8307/11) against the Kingdom of Sweden lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Swedish national, Mr Sven Olof Göthlin (“the applicant”), on 9 November 2010.

The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr A. Grahn, a lawyer practising in Falun. The Swedish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr O. Widgren, of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

The applicant complained, in particular, about the proportionality of the detention order under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

On 12 September 2012 the application was communicated to the Government.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Sundborn.

A. The writ of execution

On 8 September 2009 the Enforcement Authority (Kronofogdemyndigheten) in Falun issued a writ of execution (beslut om utmätning) attaching a mobile sawmill belonging to the applicant. It noted that the applicant’s total enforceable tax debts amounted to SEK 246,199 (roughly EUR 27,300) and that the sawmill had an estimated value of SEK 300,000 (roughly EUR 33,400). The Authority decided to leave the sawmill in the applicant’s possession but informed him that he was not allowed to sell or dispose of it or otherwise make use of it in a way that might negatively affect its value.

The applicant appealed against the decision to the District Court (tingsrätten) of Falun and also requested the Enforcement Authority to stay the sale of the sawmill while the court considered the case. The request for the interim measure was granted on 29 September 2009.

On 1 February 2010 the District Court rejected the applicant’s appeal and upheld the writ of execution. The interim measure was consequently also lifted.

Upon further appeal by the applicant, both the Svea Court of Appeal (hovrätten) and the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) refused leave to appeal, the latter on 6 May 2010.

B. The applicant’s detention

On 22 April 2010 the Enforcement Authority contacted the applicant in order to plan the sale of the attached sawmill. In his reply a few days later, the applicant stated that he had removed the sawmill from his property and hidden it. He also submitted a written statement specifying that he had removed and hidden the sawmill, alone when no one else was at home.

On 5 May 2010 the Enforcement Authority visited the applicant’s property and confirmed that the sawmill was no longer there. The Authority also handed the applicant a summons for questioning on 7 May 2010 on its premises, as well as an injunction in which he was ordered to provide the Authority with the necessary information to be able to recuperate the sawmill. The injunction also informed the applicant that, according to Chapter 4, section 14, of the Enforcement Code (Utsökningsbalken), he was duty-bound to give information about his assets and their location. It further informed him of the Authority’s intention to ask the District Court to detain him if he did not cooperate.

At the questioning, the applicant acknowledged that he knew that the sawmill was attached and that he was not allowed to dispose of it in any way. However, since he considered that the basis for the attachment was wrong, he had decided to hide it. He stated that he took full responsibility for his actions and that nobody but him had been involved or knew where the sawmill was. He refused to give any information about its whereabouts but admitted that he had driven some distance with it around mid-April 2010. He further claimed that it could be only partly in his possession and that he was not sure that he could retrieve it if he wanted to. He stated that he had even considered setting fire to the sawmill. Meanwhile, the applicant’s wife was also questioned. She informed the Enforcement Authority that she had no information about where the sawmill was hidden.

On 17 May 2010 the Enforcement Authority requested the District Court to detain the applicant because he had refused to cooperate and give the required information. It relied on Chapter 2, section 16, and Chapter 4, section 14, of the Enforcement Code. On the same day, the District Court assigned a public defender for the applicant.

The applicant opposed the measure and claimed that it would be in violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention to detain him and that no extraordinary reasons for such a measure existed.

On 27 May 2010, after having held an oral hearing, the District Court rejected the Enforcement Authority’s request. It first considered that Swedish legislation on this point did not contravene the said provisions in the Convention. The question was whether there were extraordinary reasons to detain the applicant. In this respect, the court noted that the writ of execution had gained legal force on 6 May 2010 when the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal. Thus, the court held, only a short time had passed since the matter had been finally resolved. It further observed that the Enforcement Authority had not resorted to any other measures in order to convince the applicant to reveal the location of the property, such as imposing a conditional fine. Whilst recognising that the applicant so far had been reluctant to give any information about the location of the sawmill, the court found that it could not be ruled out that a less severe coercive measure would alter his attitude. Consequently, the court concluded that currently there did not exist such extraordinary reasons to detain the applicant.

The Enforcement Authority appealed to the Court of Appeal, maintaining its claims and adding that, according to the preparatory works of the Enforcement Code, it was only necessary that the debtor had received an injunction but refused to comply with it. It further submitted that having regard to the applicant’s stance on the matter, the imposition of a conditional fine would most likely have no effect. Lastly, the Authority stated that it had reported the applicant to the police on the ground that he had committed a breach of an official order when he had removed and hidden the sawmill.

The applicant opposed the appeal, maintaining his claims and adding that he considered that, if he were detained, it would amount to imprisonment to obtain a confession. In his view, it would be clearly disproportionate to the aim pursued to detain him.

On 28 June 2010 the Court of Appeal quashed the lower court’s decision and granted the Enforcement Authority’s request. It stated that a debtor had to give necessary information about his assets and failure to do so could result in the debtor being detained, if there were extraordinary reasons for detention. Moreover, it was not necessary to impose a fine initially. Having regard to the size of the debts, the value of the hidden property and the fact that the applicant had maintained his refusal to reveal its location, the Court of Appeal found that there were extraordinary reasons to detain the applicant and that detention was proportionate to the aim pursued. In reaching its decision, the court found that the measure did not breach the Convention. Lastly, it noted that it should be informed as soon as the applicant had been detained in order to hold a hearing as to the continued detention.

The applicant was detained the following day. Consequently, on 30 June 2010, the Court of Appeal held an oral hearing and decided to maintain its earlier decision. At the hearing, the applicant stated that the taxes and the attachment had been imposed on him wrongly and that as long as these errors had not been corrected he would not cooperate to bring back the sawmill. The court reiterated its reasons as stated in its earlier decision and added that the applicant’s detention should be reviewed every second week and that he should be released immediately if he revealed the location of the property. Moreover, under no circumstances could the applicant be kept in detention for more than three months.

The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court which, on 6 July 2010, refused leave to appeal.

On 13 July 2010 the District Court reviewed the applicant’s detention and held a new hearing in the case as required by Chapter 2, section 16, of the Enforcement Code. The Enforcement Authority maintained that the applicant should be kept in detention since he still had not given any information about the location of the sawmill. It stated that it had not been able to undertake any investigative measures, since the applicant had stated that he had taken the sawmill far away from his property by car and its whereabouts thus were unknown to the Authority. The applicant, who requested his immediate release, maintained his refusal to give any information about the location of the sawmill and claimed, inter alia, that he suffered from high blood pressure and panic anxiety attacks, causing him difficulties sleeping. Moreover, he stated that he had recently been treated for prostate cancer and that he was not allowed to take his normal medication against his panic attacks since it contained narcotic substances. In its decision, the District Court noted that the applicant maintained his refusal to reveal the whereabouts of the sawmill and found, having regard to the proportionality of the measure, that there were extraordinary reasons for the applicant’s continued detention. Hence, the District Court decided that he should remain in custody.

The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal which, on 20 July 2010, rejected the appeal. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal since a new decision had already been taken by the District Court at that time.

On 27 July 2010 the District Court again reviewed the detention and held a new hearing in the case. The Enforcement Authority maintained its earlier point of view and acknowledged that no investigative measure had been possible due to the applicant’s continued refusal to cooperate. The applicant maintained his earlier position and added that he suffered from asthmatic symptoms due to the dry air in custody. Having regard to his age and health problems, he considered that it was clearly disproportionate to prolong his detention. The District Court found that there were still extraordinary reasons for the applicant’s continued detention and that it was not disproportionate to the aim pursued. It thus ordered that he should remain in custody.

The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal which, on 2 August 2010, rejected the appeal. On 5 August 2010 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.

On 9 August 2010 the District Court once again reviewed the detention and held a hearing in the case. The parties maintained their earlier standpoints. The District Court found that continued detention of the applicant would be disproportionate to the measures he had taken. Hence, the District Court concluded that there were no extraordinary reasons for the applicant’s continued detention. As a consequence, the District Court ordered his immediate release and the order was implemented the same day.

The Enforcement Authority appealed to the Court of Appeal which, on 13 August 2010, rejected the appeal.

On 7 September 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed the Enforcement Authority’s further appeal and consequently, on 23 September 2010, the District Court struck the case out of its list of cases as the case was closed.

As concerns the Enforcement Authority’s police report concerning the applicant’s alleged breach of an official order pursuant to Chapter 17, section 13, of the Penal Code (Brottsbalken), the preliminary investigation was discontinued with reference to provisions on waiver of prosecution (åtalsunderlåtelse) on 13 April 2011.

On 4 October 2011 the Enforcement Authority decided to revoke the writ of execution concerning the sawmill since it considered that no additional circumstances had emerged that could reveal its location. Furthermore, it was considered that there were no other measures which could produce results to that end.

C. The complaint to the Chancellor of Justice

On 26 April 2012 the applicant submitted a claim for damages to the Chancellor of Justice (Justitiekanslern), pursuant to the Act on Compensation for Deprivation of Liberty and Other Coercive Measures (Lagen om ersättning vid frihetsberövande och andra tvångsåtgärder, 1998:714), in the amount of SEK 80,000 for the suffering he had endured during the 42 days he was deprived of his liberty. He further demanded to be reimbursed SEK 2,940 for costs which had been deducted from his pension during his time in detention.

On 15 October 2012 the Chancellor of Justice rejected the claim. The Chancellor noted that the decision to detain the applicant had been taken by a court of law, in accordance with relevant legal provisions. Moreover, the examination of the case showed no basis for finding that the decision had been taken on erroneous grounds and therefore was incorrect.