6.  The applicant was born in 1950 and died in June 2011. His wife and sole heir, Mrs Julia Rousk, decided to pursue the application. She lives in Hässelby. 7.  The applicant was the owner of a close company and was under a statutory obligation to submit a special income tax return every year. For the tax assessment year 2002 (income earned during 2001), he was obliged to submit the tax return no later than 31 March 2002. However, having failed that, in July 2002, the Tax Authority (Skattemyndigheten) in Stockholm ordered him to submit his tax return within two weeks from receiving the order. As he did not comply with the order, the Tax Authority informed him that it would make a discretionary assessment of his income and, in October 2002, sent him a proposal for a discretionary assessment. The applicant was given two weeks to comment on it, but did not do so. In November 2002, the Tax Authority decided to maintain the proposal and, as it found no grounds for exemption, imposed tax surcharges on him. The applicant was informed that the taxes, tax surcharges and a delay charge amounted to, in total, SEK 232,572 (approximately EUR 27,000). This amount was to be paid by 26 February 2003. The Tax Authority’s decision included information about how to request reconsideration or appeal against it. However, at that time the applicant did neither, nor did he request respite from paying the taxes. 8.  Since tax debts to the State are immediately enforceable, the Tax Authority, after having reminded the applicant of his obligation to pay the tax debt, passed the claim for collection to the Enforcement Authority (Kronofogdemyndigheten) in Stockholm where it was registered in April 2003. 9.  On 28 May 2003 the Enforcement Authority issued a writ of execution (beslut om utmätning) attaching the applicant’s site-leasehold right (tomträtt) and the house on the site where the applicant and his wife lived (hereafter referred to as his property). It noted that the applicant’s total enforceable debts amounted to SEK 255,329 and that his property’s taxation value for 2002 was SEK 1,372,000, with his mortgage amounting to SEK 960,200. On 29 April 2003, an Enforcement Officer had been to the applicant’s home for a pre-planned visit to investigate whether he had any assets that could be attached. However, the applicant had not been at home. The Enforcement Officer had left a note for the applicant, requesting him to contact the Enforcement Authority. It would appear that he did not do so. According to an investigation report of the applicant’s assets dated 4 July 2003, and carried out by the Enforcement Authority, no other assets to cover the applicant’s debts than his property was accounted for. The writ of execution of 28 May 2003 was sent to the applicant but it would appear that he only became aware of it some time in July 2003 and on 4 August 2003, upon request by the applicant, the Enforcement Authority sent him a copy of the writ. 10.  On 10 August 2003 the applicant appealed against the writ of execution to the District Court (tingsrätten) of Stockholm and requested that it be repealed as his tax debt had not been finally decided. He noted that he had not been served the decision to attach his property and thus had been prevented from appealing against it sooner. He then stated that he would submit his tax return for the tax assessment year 2002 to the Tax Authority immediately and that he had also requested respite from payment of his taxes although the Tax Authority had not dealt with this request yet. Moreover, he claimed that it was utterly disproportionate to sell his home, which would entail serious economic, social and medical consequences for him and his wife. He had suffered from serious depression for some years, for which he had sought medical help in October 2002, and in February 2003 he had begun treatment. Only lately had he begun to feel better and been able to deal with his situation. He submitted a medical certificate which stated that he had been in contact with a psychiatric care centre since February 2003 and that he suffered from depression and was taking antidepressants. Lastly, he informed the court that another of his debts, to the Traffic and Property Management Department (Gatu- och Fastighetskontoret; hereafter the “TPMD”), had been cancelled as he had paid it. 11.  On 28 August 2003 the District Court rejected the appeal. It found no reasons to repeal the decision as there was an enforceable debt against the applicant for which the creditor, the State, demanded payment. The court was notified by the Enforcement Authority that, to the latter’s knowledge, the Tax Authority had not granted the applicant respite from the payment of his taxes. 12.  The applicant appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal (hovrätten) on 15 September 2003 and requested an extension of three weeks to submit his appeal since he had asked for certain documents from the Enforcement Authority but had not yet received them. 13.  On 5 November 2003 the Court of Appeal, having received no further communications from the applicant, refused leave to appeal. The applicant made no further appeal to the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen). 14.  On 28 July 2003, by fax and letter, the applicant, referring to an order to submit his tax return, stated that due to illness he had not submitted his tax returns for the tax assessment years 2002 and 2003. He requested the Tax Authority to grant him respite from the payment of his taxes until a new tax assessment had been made, as he intended to submit his tax returns shortly. Apparently, the fax and letter were sorted wrongly in the incoming mail to the Tax Authority and thus it was not until the applicant renewed his request one month later, on 28 August 2003, that the Tax Authority dealt with it. At this time, he also submitted his tax return for the tax assessment year 2002. He invoked his illness and submitted a medical certificate confirming that he suffered from depression. Lastly, he noted that it was extremely important for him that the request be dealt with as soon as possible. He reiterated his request for respite in a fax to the Tax Authority on 1 September 2003, noting that it was of highest importance to him that the request be dealt with promptly. 15.  On 3 September 2003 the Tax Authority granted him respite from payment of the taxes and tax surcharges imposed on him as a result of the discretionary tax assessment. This decision was registered on the same day in the applicant’s tax account in the Tax Authority’s database. However, the Tax Authority did not inform the Enforcement Authority about the respite directly by fax or in any other way. 16.  On 30 September 2003 the Tax Authority sent the applicant a preliminary re-assessment of his income for the tax assessment year 2002 and gave him two weeks to comment on it. In its re‑assessment, the Tax Authority first noted that since the applicant had submitted a tax return, the discretionary assessment, including the tax surcharges, should be repealed. However, it then found that the applicant’s tax return lacked essential information, for which reason it accepted only part of it and supplemented the remainder with its own assessment. It further imposed tax surcharges on the part where it had made a discretionary assessment, resulting in a total amount for taxes and tax surcharges of SEK 78,866 (approximately EUR 9,150). 17.  On 26 November 2003 the Tax Authority confirmed its preliminary consideration and the respite from the payment, which had been granted on 3 September 2003, lapsed. Instead, the applicant’s tax debt to the State, based on the new decision, became enforceable. However, on 30 April 2004, upon request by the applicant, the Tax Authority granted him respite from payment of the tax surcharges (SEK 17,469). 18.  Upon request by the applicant, the Tax Authority, on 29 June 2004, reconsidered its decision in the light of his further submissions in the case but decided not to change the decision. 19.  On 2 December 2007 the applicant appealed against the Tax Authority’s decision to the County Administrative Court (länsrätten). On 17 January 2008 the Tax Authority decided not to alter its decision and forwarded the appeal to the County Administrative Court. No further decisions or judgments have been submitted by the parties and, consequently, the outcome of these proceedings is unknown to the Court. 20.  In the meantime, on 23 June 2003, the Enforcement Authority decided that the applicant’s property should be sold at public auction to pay his debts and he was informed of this decision by a letter of 4 July 2003. Moreover, in a letter of 31 July 2003, he was informed that the public auction would take place on 3 September 2003. 21.  On 28 July 2003, an evaluation of the applicant’s property was carried out by an independent company at the request of the Enforcement Authority. The company valued the property to between SEK 1,850,000 and SEK 2,150,000. 22.  On the same day, 28 July 2003, the applicant requested the Enforcement Authority to stay the sale of his property for a period of two months, stating that he had not been able to submit his tax return in time due to personal reasons. He further stated that he had paid another of his debts, namely that to the TPMD, which should therefore be removed from the Enforcement Authority’s list of his debts. According to the applicant, he had telephoned the Enforcement Authority earlier and informed them that he was suffering from serious depression for which he was being treated. 23.  On 30 July 2003 the Enforcement Authority rejected the applicant’s request. It noted that the State, as petitioner, had opposed a stay of execution. Moreover, the personal reasons invoked by the applicant were not such special circumstances that a stay could be granted. Thus, there were no reasons to stay the enforcement proceedings. 24.  On 4 August 2003 the applicant appealed against the decision to the District Court, invoking the same grounds as in his appeal against the writ of execution (see above § 10), namely his illness, the fact that the debt to the TPMD had been paid, that he would submit his tax return and had requested respite from the payment. He also submitted a copy of the medical certificate. 25.  In reply to the applicant’s appeal, the Enforcement Authority submitted, inter alia, that the fact that the applicant had now submitted a letter from the TPMD confirming that his debt in that respect had been paid did not alter the fact that his tax debt remained and was enforceable and that the State, as petitioner represented by the Enforcement Authority, required payment. There is no information whether the Tax Authority was consulted on this issue. 26.  On 28 August 2003 the District Court rejected the appeal. It noted that the petitioner, the State, had not agreed to stay the sale and that there were no special reasons in the applicant’s case to justify a stay on the sale. 27.  On 3 September 2003 at 1.45 p.m. the public auction to sell the applicant’s property took place. From the Enforcement Authority’s protocol of the auction it appears that a first bid in the amount of SEK 1,475,000 was rejected by the Enforcement Authority as being too low. However, after a second round of bids, the Enforcement Authority accepted the highest bid in the amount of SEK 1,600,000 (approximately EUR 186,000) as it considered it unlikely that a higher sum could be obtained. The date of accession to the property for the new owner, a private person, was set for 1 October 2003 and, consequently, the applicant was informed that he had to vacate his home before that date. The protocol further noted that the direct costs for the public auction amounted to SEK 45,660. 28.  On 15 September 2003 the applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal against the District Court’s decision not to stay the sale of his property. On 5 November 2003 the appellate court struck the case out of its list of cases as the property had already been sold when the appeal was lodged with the court. 29.  On 17 September 2003 the applicant appealed against the sale to the District Court, demanding that it be declared null and void since the Tax Authority, on the same day the auction was held, had granted him respite from the payment of his tax debt and, therefore, the writ of execution should have been revoked. In the alternative, he requested that a new auction be held in order to obtain a higher price for the property since, in his view, it had been sold for a price far lower than its real value. In this respect, he noted that the independent company had valued the property at around SEK 2 million. 30.  In reply, the Enforcement Authority submitted that it had not been shown that the Tax Authority’s decision granting the applicant respite from payment of his tax debt had been taken before the public auction had taken place at 1.45 p.m. According to information from the Tax Authority, the decision had been made in the afternoon of 3 September. In any event, the applicant had other debts to the State amounting to SEK 23,775 (approximately EUR 2,800) which warranted the sale of the property. It further noted that only two persons had made bids for the property at the auction and that it had refused the first offer and accepted the second one, which amounted to 80% of the estimated market value. It pointed out that buying a property at public auction entailed more risks for the buyer, for which reason the sale price was normally below market value. For example, there were no guarantees that the state of the property was the same on the day of accession to the property as when the property had been inspected prior to the sale. 31.  The applicant commented on the Enforcement Authority’s submission and pointed out that the remaining enforceable debt after he had been granted respite from his tax debt amounted only to around SEK 7,500 and not SEK 23,775 as claimed by the Enforcement Authority. He further noted that the Tax Authority’s decision on respite was registered at 2.02 p.m. on 3 September and that the Enforcement Authority thus could have verified this during the pause between the two bidding rounds. In this regard, he pointed out that he had informed the Enforcement Authority of his request for respite from paying his taxes and that it therefore should have verified directly with the Tax Authority before beginning the public auction. This was especially so as both authorities represented the State, which was the petitioner in the case. 32.  On 15 October 2003 the District Court rejected the appeal. It noted that the writ of execution had not been annulled and that the grounds invoked by the applicant for why the writ should have been annulled did not give reason to annul the sale of the property. As concerned the price obtained for the property at auction, the court shared the Enforcement Authority’s assessment. The applicant’s further submissions did not give cause to grant his appeal. 33.  On 4 November 2003, the applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal, invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and claiming that it was clearly disproportionate to sell his property for a debt which, according to his calculation, amounted to no more than SEK 6,721 (approximately EUR 800). 34.  On 12 December 2003 the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal. The applicant appealed against the decision on 2 January 2004 and reiterated his claims. However, on 23 January 2004, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal. 35.  Although the applicant had been ordered to move out of his house before 1 October 2003, he refused to do so. As a result, on 6 October 2003 the Enforcement Authority, at the request of the buyer of the property, decided to evict the applicant, unless he moved out before 14 October 2003. 36.  On 10 October 2003 the applicant requested respite from the eviction, invoking his and his wife’s poor health and the fact that they had no alternative housing. Moreover, he stated that the sale had not yet gained legal force, as he had appealed against it, for which reason he was still the rightful owner of the property. 37.  On the same day, the Enforcement Authority rejected the request as it considered that the applicant’s situation was not likely to change within the next few weeks, as it was not a question of a sudden illness, and respite could only be granted for a maximum of four weeks and if there were exceptional reasons. 38.  On 11 October 2003 the applicant appealed against both decisions to the District Court, disputing the eviction decision and insisting that, at the very least, the eviction should be postponed. He maintained his arguments and pointed out that while he was obliged to leave his home before the sale had gained legal force, he would not receive the money from the sale until after that, which effectively prevented him from buying a new home. He added that both he and his wife had suffered a crisis reaction due to their situation which made it impossible for him to deal with the situation and search for a new home for them. He furnished a medical certificate, dated 13 October 2003, by a chief physician and specialist in psychiatry, which stated that the applicant suffered from depression, the symptoms being a generally low mood, difficulties taking initiatives and getting things done and poor concentration. His state had fluctuated somewhat, but overall there had been an improvement. He was in need of continued medication and a calm and secure situation. 39.  On 13 October 2003 the District Court decided not to postpone the eviction set for the following day and, on 5 November 2003, it rejected the appeal, stating that it shared the Enforcement Authority’s reasoning. 40.  Upon further appeal by the applicant, in which he maintained his claims, the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal on 23 December 2003, as did the Supreme Court on 27 May 2004. 41.  Meanwhile, on 22 October 2003, the eviction was enforced by the Enforcement Authority. The applicant and his wife were present, as were two police officers. The house was emptied by professional movers and the contents stored by them. The applicant’s cat was taken to a cattery and his car was taken to a pound. However, a number of items, listed by the Enforcement Authority, were thrown away as they were considered to be either impossible to store (such as flowers and food from the fridge/freezer) or rubbish. A bed which could not be removed from the house in one piece due to its size was also, by special decision of the Enforcement Authority, destroyed and thrown away. According to a letter from the Enforcement Authority to the applicant, dated 18 May 2004, the cost of the eviction amounted to SEK 71,115. 42.  The applicant complained against these measures to the District Court and, at the same time, appealed against the Enforcement Authority’s decision concerning the bed. He stated that he considered it to be a violation of his right to property to evict him and to throw some of his belongings away, having regard in particular to the fact that the sale of his property had not yet gained legal force and that, consequently, he was still its lawful owner. He further submitted a detailed list of all items which he claimed had been thrown away or had “disappeared” and demanded compensation for the loss of these items. He further complained that a flag pole which belonged to his brother had been considered as part of the property. 43.  On 26 November 2003 the District Court found that no mistakes had been made during the eviction in relation to the decision to destroy the bed and therefore rejected the applicant’s complaint. The applicant did not appeal against this decision to the Court of Appeal. 44.  Moreover, on 23 December 2003, the District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint concerning other measures taken during the eviction and dismissed the claim for compensation for items destroyed or thrown away as it had to be tried in separate proceedings. 45.  The applicant appealed further to the Court of Appeal which, on 29 January 2004, refused leave to appeal. The applicant did not make any further appeal to the Supreme Court. 46.  On 1 October 2003 the Enforcement Authority held a distribution session (fördelningssammanträde) to divide the money obtained from the sale of the property among the creditors. From the protocol of the session it appears that it was decided that the applicant’s mortgage (SEK 881,788) should be repaid to his bank immediately, while the costs and fees involved in the proceedings of the public auction (SEK 45,660), the debt to the Tax Authority and the remaining money left for the applicant should be paid once the sale gained legal force. The debt to the Tax Authority was noted in the protocol as amounting to SEK 256,352. 47.  The applicant appealed against the Enforcement Authority’s distribution decision, claiming that it should be declared null and void since he had been granted respite from payment of most of his tax debt and it therefore should not have been included in the protocol, except for the sum of SEK 6,721. The Enforcement Authority had been informed about the respite on 8 September 2003, and had therefore known about it at the time of the distribution session. 48.  The Enforcement Authority submitted in reply that its computer system was updated on the first Saturday of every month and that the respite granted by the Tax Authority thus had not yet been registered on 1 October 2003 when the distribution session had been held. However, since then, the registration had been made and the enforceable tax debt had been reduced to SEK 6,721, which would be taken into account when the money was paid to the different parties. 49.  On 19 November 2003 the District Court decided that the protocol from the distribution session should be corrected to reflect the correct amount (SEK 6,721) due to the State at the time of the distribution session, since the Enforcement Authority had known about the respite from payment at the time, even though it was not formally registered in its database. This decision gained legal force. 50.  On 27 January 2004, the Enforcement Authority paid the applicant SEK 524,343 (approximately EUR 61,000), namely the amount of money which remained from the sale of the property after all debts as well as costs relating to the sale on public auction and the eviction had been paid. The State received SEK 6,721 as payment for the applicant’s enforceable debts to the State (apparently these were debts relating to vehicle tax and television licence fees).