Database
The immunities of States and international organisations
This database contains the original national contributions bringing together information on The immunities of States and international organisations
Information on the contribution
- Member State
- Sweden
- Themes
- Type of document
- Jurisprudence
- Permanent link to the contribution
- http://www.cahdidatabases.coe.int/C/Immunities/Sweden/1994/263
- Useful links
-
http://www.infotorg.sema.se
- Translations
-
- No translations
- Add a translation
THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE QUOTED AS FOLLOWS:
Database of the CAHDI "The immunities of States and international organisations" - contribution of Sweden - Jurisprudence of 02/02/1994
Database of the CAHDI "The immunities of States and international organisations" - contribution of Sweden - Jurisprudence of 02/02/1994
N.N. (inidividual) with Industrial Cleaning Consulting v. ICEP (Portugal's Trading Centre)
Author(ity)
Market Court (Marknadsdomstolen)
Date of the decision, of the judgment
02/02/1994
Points of law
The Market Court dismisses an application according to the Market Court Law since ICEP is found to not be considered as a “manufacturer”.Summary of the case
In an application N.N. claimed that the Market Court should prohibit ICEP to advertise in Sweden guaranteeing safe investment in Portugal, and also to do publicity for a functioning legal framework in Portugal. N.N. claimed that misleading marketing had taken place through a booklet published by Portugal's Trading Centre, and that the State of Portugal had to be considered as responsible for the marketing as the responsible authority for ICEP, which in itself should be considered to act with the State's authorisation.According to the information that the Market Court obtained from ICEP's representation in Stockholm, ICEP is a governmental body principally financed by the State and subordinated to the Ministry for Trade and Tourism.
The Market Court noted that ICEP is a Portuguese State institution. Furthermore, the Court found no reason to judge the activities differently than it had done in the decision of 20 November 1993. Taking all this into consideration the Court found that the prerequisites of the Marketing Act were not fulfilled, why the application was dismissed.
