Sedelmayers Kampf mit der Federation (Russland)

 

 

Automatic Translation (Google)
2014-03-13

Nacka Strand
annex is 17
Mal No
A 1194-14
Notices in the parties absentia
Auditors
Alderman Anders Lillienau
PROTOKOLLFÔRARE
Preparation Counsel Gustav Sandler
PARTIES
PLAINTIVE
The Russian Federation
c / o Embassy of the Russian Federation
Gjôrwellsgatan31
112 60 Stockholm
Agents: Advokatema Heni'ik Fieber and Anders Börjesson
Roschier Attorneys Ltd.
Box 7358
103 90 Stockholm
COUNTERPARTS
1. Franz J. Sedelmayer
417 Avenue de Musee des Troupes de Marine
83600 Frejus
France
Agents: Advokatema Hans Forsell and Jonas Lott Inger
Eversheds Sodermark Attorneys
Box 140 55
104 40 Stockholm
2nd BillyÙney
Ice Road 8
152 59 Sodertalje

Subject:
Forced sale of the property Lidingö Kostem 5

The property Lidingö Kostern 5 has been imposed for the payment of Franz Sedelmayer
claims against the Russian Federation.
A forced sale of the property genomfôrdes February 18, 2014 . The property
inropades for 20 500 000 1er Billy Ûney . The bid was accepted by the Applicant Mr J
Sedelmayer but not of the Russian Federation. Enforcement Authority accepted the offer
because it is not considered likely that considerably higher purchase price could be achieved.
The Russian Federation contends that the district court repeals the Enforcement Authority
fôrsâljningsbeslut February 18, 2014 and decides to fôrsàljningsprocessen respect
property Lidingö Kostern 5 should be discontinued . Russian Federation , too claims that
The district court immediately Haver fôrsâljningsbeslutet and decides that further action
for the enforcement of the decision until further notice may not be taken ( inhibition) . The Russian Federation
has hubs claimed costs in the district court.

The district court decided in Decision February 28, 2014 rejected the claim for immediate
Rescission of Enforcement Authority fôrsâljningsbeslut and inhibition .
Enforcement Authority has given its opinion on the appeal .

The Russian Federation has subsequently requested that the matter should be settled by three legally qualified judges .
Russian Federation , too contends , for that case the district court finds reason to
communicate the appeal of the defendant before the case is decided , the district court
earlier at new takes a position on the Russian Federation interim relief .

Russian Federation as a reason for ôverlclagandet states including following . all
residential apartments in the building now used as tjânstelâgenheter for diplomatic
The staff at the Russian embassy or official of the Russian Trade Representation,
which have diplomatic status . In addition, the building is used as an archive for the mission and that the local garage for the mission's vehicles and those parts of the property
therefore regarded as constituting part of the actual mission premises with the protection that this Nacka District MINUTES Â1194 -14
means . The property is dâaied immune to all decisions sytar to enforcement of
utmàtningsbeslut against the property concerned, in particular the decision to sell the property.
The decision to sell the property and the fotsata enforcement is contrary to the Vienna Convention régler that privatbostâder and mission premises not be the subject of
enforcement measures ( atiklaaa 22.3 and 30 of the Vienna Convention ) . Furthermore , the Decision
against Sweden's commitment to take all appropriate steps to protect the mission premises and privatbostâder against any infringement and to prevent the mission's peace is disturbed or its violating the dignity (Articles 22.2 and 30 of the Vienna Convention ) .

The ownership transfer decision causes threaten the same way the inviolability of the archives and
garage premises enjoys. The decision also involves the accommodation of officials and
use of the building for archives and garage no longer be guaranteed , which in itself
constitutes a violation of diplomatic immunity . Sweden's obligation under
Convention is particularly significant there is real danger for the mission disrupted.
In this case, the decision means a marked increase in this risk since the expectant owner
property obviously has for intent to enter any premises in the property.
The decision affects the , as long as it upprâtthâlls , the ability of the Russian Federation
representatives to perform its functions. The Swedish courts have not finally decided
If execution of utmâtningsbeslutet is compatible with the diplomatic
immunity. The property is immune to verkstàllighetsâtgârder arising from a
utmatningsbeslut announced . Enforcement Authority has left unanswered the question
if a sale of the property itself constitutes a violation of the diplomatic
immunity.

The Russian Federation has the support of the appeal raises two râttsutlâtanden of
Professor Pal Wrange and other written underlag.NACKA DISTRICT COURT MINUTES Â1194 -14
District Court announces
FINAL DECISION
end
The court rejects the appeal.
bOWL
composition district court
The general rule in § 3 , first paragraph Act ( 1996:242) domstolsârenden Consists
The district court of a legally qualified judge at hearing a case . About the Inn regularly
Specific reasons Owing to the nature , the district court may , however, consist of the three
legally qualified judges .
Russian Federation as a reason for the request that it be determined by three legally qualified
Judge argues that the district court has to consider a number of complex legal
matters of great principle value , including matters relating to Sweden's international
commitments. District court judges that the issues Auditors have to consider in
the case is not of such a nature that there is reason to rule with three
legally qualified judges . Russian Federation's request must therefore be dismissed.
Executive Sales
Russian Federation , as is visible in râttsfallet NJA 2011 p 475 no
been able to claim immunity from execution of a judgment of the property Lidingö
Kostern 5 , owned by the Russian Federation. The court finds that the highest
court case law , points 15 and 21 , raised the issue of the Vienna Convention
protection for , inter alia, The property's residences for diplomats or officials and lokaler for
archive and storage of diplomatic vehicles . The Supreme Court found that the ick considered undisputed that the property is not in significant part was used for the Russian Federation official
activities and purpose not otherwise been of sufficient qualified nature
for the defenders to protect property against seizure in verkstâllighetsârendet .
The court believes that the Russian Federation has pointed out, there for each verkstâllighetsâtgârd be tested if the action constitutes a violation of diplomatic immunity
under the Vienna Convention . By now under appeal , the property has been sold
executive . The court finds , like Kronofogdemyndigheten that in respect
This action is no reason to make any other assessment in relation to sovereign immunity
and diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention an as is visible in the Supreme Court in 2011. The District Court therefore considers that , by reason of sovereign immunity
or diplomatic immunity is not something obstacle to a forced sale of the property. According to the district court has not revealed any circumstance warranting
to repeal the Enforcement Authority fôrsâljningsbeslut or cancel fôrsâljningsÔverklagandet will therefore be rejected. Medhânsyn to expiration should the claim for compensation
for costs is dismissed .
HOW TO ÔVERKLAGAR , see Appendix (DV 406)
An appeal must be submitted to the district court by 3 April 2014.
Appeals examined by Svea Court of Appeal . Appeal is required .
as above
process.