4.  The applicant was chairman of the board of directors of two private limited companies, in the following referred to as “HotLine Production” and “HotLine Export”, or together “the HotLine companies”. 5.  In the 1990’s the HotLine companies entered into business with a private limited company, henceforth referred to as “Intertex”, concerning the use of modem components. Following a dispute, in December 1994 Intertex instituted civil proceedings before the District Court of Stockholm (Stockholms Tingsrätt) against HotLine Production and in October 1995 against HotLine Export, claiming compensation for the alleged exploitation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and infringement of copyright. 6.  The cases were dealt with in joint proceedings and by judgment of 14 July 1997 the District Court found HotLine Production liable to pay damages to Intertex in the amount of 13,180,225 Swedish kronor (SEK), equal to approximately 1,442,701 euros (EUR), for which HotLine Export was found jointly liable as to SEK 7,516,875. 7.  On appeal, before the Court of Appeal (Svea Hovrätt) on 19 January 1998 the applicant claimed that the judgment should be set aside and the case referred back to the District Court. In support thereof he submitted that the latter had not decided whether or not some disputed printed circuits were to be regarded as trade secrets. Written observations were submitted, and on 6 October 1998 the applicant urged the Court of Appeal to remit the case to the District Court as soon a possible. His claim was refused on 22 March 1999 by the Court of Appeal, and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) was refused on 3 May 1999. In vain the applicant repeated his request in this respect on 16 April 1999 and 12 April 2000. 8.  By decision of 30 November 2000, the Court of Appeal quashed the District Court judgment of 14 July 1997 and referred the case back to the District Court on account of procedural errors because the latter had wrongly assumed that the question whether some printed circuits were to be regarded as trade secrets was non-contentious and therefore had not determined it. Intertex’s request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the remittal was refused on 10 September 2001. 9.  The trial took place in the period between 16 September and 2 October 2002, and on 23 October 2002 the District Court delivered its second judgment finding HotLine Production liable to pay damages to Intertex in the amount of SEK 1,742,000, equal to approximately EUR 190,678, and rejecting Intertex’s action against HotLine Export. 10.  Both parties appealed against the judgment to the Court of Appeal, before which apparently the case is still pending.
The proceedings between Intertex and the applicant. 11.  In the meantime, on 27 December 1995 Intertex instituted civil proceedings before the District Court of Stockholm against the applicant claiming compensation in the amount of SEK 11,325,000, an amount that was subsequently modified several times, alleging that pursuant to Chapter 15, § 1 of the Companies Act (Aktiebolagslagen) the applicant had incurred liability in his role as chairman of the board of directors for having taken various questionable measures in order to intentionally reduce the HotLine companies’ net capital. Thus, if the Hotline companies were to lose their case against Intertex, the former would not be in a position to pay any compensation which might be awarded to Intertex in these proceedings. The case was assigned to the same division of the District Court that examined the case lodged by Intertex against the HotLines companies, and on 26 March 1996 a common preparatory session was held in the two cases. Another two of such sessions were held in respectively December 1996 and January 1997, subsequent to which, on 20 January 1997 the District Court decided to adjourn the proceedings in the Intertex v. the applicant case pending the outcome of the case Intertex v. the Hotline companies. 12.  At the request of Intertex, on 17 February 1998 the District Court decided by way of an interim measure to sequestrate as much of the applicant’s property as corresponded to an amount of SEK 9,500,000, equal to approximately EUR 1,039,865. De facto, however, the value of the applicant’s possessions that were sequestrated never exceeded SEK 275,000, equal to EUR 30,101. In order to provide security for any loss which the applicant might suffer in this respect, Intertex had to provide a banker’s guarantee to the court in the amount of SEK 500,000. The applicant appealed in vain against the sequestration order and his subsequent requests that the District Court revoke it were refused on 23 April, 26 May and 3 July 1998, and on 12 July and 5 August 1999. On appeal, the decisions were upheld, as to the latest by the Court of Appeal on 17 November 1999, against which decision the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal on 21 January 2000. 13.  Eventually, however, by decision of 7 March 2001 the District Court lifted the sequestration order. 14.  In the meantime, on 8 May 2000 the City Court rejected the applicant’s request that the stay of the proceedings be revoked, a decision that was upheld on appeal on 16 June 2000 by the Court of Appeal. 15.  On 7 March 2001 the applicant requested that Intertex’s action should be dismissed as being unlawful in that it did not relate to a claim that was due or even a fixed amount. The sequestration order having been lifted beforehand, his request was rejected by the District Court on 8 May 2001. 16.  Anew, on 5 October 2001 the applicant requested that the stay of the proceedings be revoked. Consequently, on 31 January 2002 in the two sets of proceedings, a common preparatory session was held before the District Court, at which the parties accepted that a separate judgment be passed in the Intertex v. the applicant case. Shortly thereafter, on 7 February 2002, Intertex brought a new action against the applicant, which it requested be joined with its original action, a request that was complied with on 15 February 2002. 17.  On 20 March 2002 the District Court passed its separate judgment refusing to dismiss Intertex’s action, and stating that if it was established in the case Intertex v. the HotLine companies that the former had a money claim against the latter, that claim should form the basis of the assessment in the proceedings between Intertex and the applicant. Also, the proceedings should continue to be stayed awaiting the outcome of the proceedings between Intertex and the HotLine companies. The applicant’s appeal against the part of the judgment that concerned the refusal to dismiss the action was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 3 January 2003. The applicant did not specifically appeal against the part of the District Court’s judgment that concerned the continued stay of the proceedings.