Lexploria

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

SECOND CHAMBER

Application No. 14740/89

Arvid Andersson and 28 Others

against

Sweden

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 19 January 1994)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

PART I: STATEMENT OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

PART II: SOLUTION REACHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

APPENDIX: DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY (WITH ANNEX) . . . . . . . 7

INTRODUCTION

1. The present Report relates to the application introduced under

Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Mr. Arvid Andersson and others

against Sweden on 28 February 1988. The application was registered on

7 March 1989 under file No. 14740/89. The Report was drawn up partly

in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 and partly in accordance with

Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention.

The applicants were represented by Mr. Göran Ravnsborg, an

Assistant Professor of Law resident at Lund.

The Government of Sweden were represented by their Agent,

Mr. Carl Henrik Ehrenkrona, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Stockholm.

2. On 2 December 1992 the Commission (Second Chamber) declared the

application partly admissible. It then proceeded to carry out its task

under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides as follows:

"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to

it:

a. it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake

together with the representatives of the parties an

examination of the petition and, if need be, an

investigation, for the effective conduct of which the

States concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities,

after an exchange of views with the Commission;

b. it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of

the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly

settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human

Rights as defined in this Convention."

3. The Commission (Second Chamber) found:

- that one of the applicants (Lars Olsson - applicant no. 21)

had failed to state whether or not he wished to pursue his

application and, in the affirmative, whether or not he

accepted the proposal for a friendly settlement; and

- that the remaining applicants and the respondent Government

had reached a friendly settlement of the case.

4. The Commission noted that, under Article 30 para. 1 of the

Convention, it may strike an application out of its list of cases where

the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not

intend to pursue it and where respect for human rights does not require

that the Commission continue its examination.

5. On 19 January 1994 the Commission (Second Chamber) therefore

adopted this Report, which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 and

Article 30 para. 2 of the Convention, is confined to a statement of the

facts, the solution reached and, in respect of applicant no. 21, the

Commission's decision to strike the application off its list of cases

as well as the reasons therefor.

The following members were present when the Report was adopted:

MM. S. TRECHSEL, President

H. DANELIUS

G. JÖRUNDSSON

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

Mrs.G.H. THUNE

MM. F. MARTINEZ

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

6. The applicants are all Swedish citizens, with the exception of

applicant no. 14, who is a citizen of the United Kingdom. The

applicants as well as the facts of the case are set out in detail in

the Commission's decision of 2 December 1992 as to the admissibility

of the application (see the Appendix). The facts may be summarised as

follows:

7. The applicants are, or were, owners or lease-holders of

properties in the area of Ljungskile. Applicants nos. 5, 6 and 17 as

well as nos. 19 and 20 and nos. 22 and 23, respectively, are joint

property owners.

8. In November 1986 the National Road Administration (Vägverket,

hereinafter "the NRA") adopted a road construction plan (vägplan) for

the reconstruction of part of the motorway E6 between Stora Höga and

Bratteröd/Uddevalla. According to the plan, the motorway was to be

re-constructed on a road embankment over the inner part of the bay of

Ljungskile.

9. The decision was appealed against to the Government by a large

number of physical and legal persons, including the applicants, who

argued, inter alia, that the motorway should have been re-constructed

east of Ljungskile. They further objected to the procedure terminating

in the adoption of the road construction plan and considered the costs

of the proposed reconstruction excessive.

10. On 3 September 1987 the Government (Ministry of Transport and

Communication) rejected the appeals, having found, inter alia, that the

road construction plan had been drawn up in accordance with the law.

11. According to the 1971 Roads Act (väglag 1971:948) a road

construction right (vägrätt) arises when the land specified in the road

construction plan is being used for road purposes. The right of way

authorises the maintainer of the road to determine the use of land

needed for the road, notwithstanding the right of any other party with

regard to the property. It normally also includes the right to make use

of resources that can be extracted from the land.

12. The Roads Act further prescribes that from the moment a decision

to adopt a road construction plan has gained legal force until the

construction work is finished, no building may be erected or any other

measure be taken within the road area specified in the plan. Such

measures, which could obstruct the use of the area for the intended

road purposes, may only be taken with the permission of the County

Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen).

13. The applicants complained, inter alia, that they were unable to

obtain a court examination of the Government's decision. They invoked

Article 6 para. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

14. Following the decision on the admissibility of the application,

the Commission (Second Chamber) placed itself at the disposal of the

parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance

with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties

to submit any proposals they wished to make.

15. In accordance with the usual practice, the Chamber Secretary,

acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to

explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.

16. Proposals for a settlement were made by the respondent Government

on 14 January 1993 and by the applicants' representative on

21 January 1993.

17. On 2 April 1993 the applicants' representative indicated that

applicant no. 21 had refused to commission him to enter into friendly

settlement negotiations.

18. On 13 May 1993 the Commission decided to make a further

settlement proposal.

19. On 14 June 1993 the Government stated their willingness to

compensate the applicants for non-pecuniary damages in the total amount

of 240,000 SEK, to be distributed as follows:

- to applicants Nos. 1-4, 7-16, 18 and 24-29: 10,000 SEK each;

- to applicants Nos. 5-6 and 17: 3,333 SEK each;

- to applicants Nos. 19, 20, 22 and 23: 5,000 SEK each.

The Government further stated that they were prepared to

compensate the applicants' legal costs with 20.000 SEK.

20. On 22 July 1993 the applicants' representative informed the

Commission that all the above applicants had accepted the Government's

offer.

21. By a registered letter of 30 September 1993 the Commission

requested applicant no. 21 to indicate whether he intended to pursue

his application and, in the affirmative, whether or not he accepted the

Commission's settlement proposal. No reply was received.

22. At its session on 19 January 1994, the Commission noted that,

except for applicant no. 21, the parties had reached an agreement

regarding the terms of a settlement, reading as follows:

"SETTLEMENT

On 2 December 1992 the European Commission of Human Rights

decided to declare admissible Application No. 14740/89 lodged by

Mr. Arvid Andersson and others against Sweden.

The Government and 28 of the applicants have now reached the

following friendly settlement on the basis of respect for Human Rights

as defined in the Convention in order to terminate the proceedings

before the Commission.

a) The Government will pay the sum of 10.000 SEK to each of:

Mr. Arvid Andersson

Mr. Evert Andersson

Mr. Kjell Berntsson

Mr. Bengt-Åke Emanuelsson

Mr. Göran Hermansson

Ms. Marianne Isaksson

Ms. Lily Jacobsson

Ms. Agnes Johansson

Mr. Gösta Johansson

Mr. Bosse Karlsson

Mr. Kjell Karlsson

Ms. Freda Keillor

Mr. Conny Krantz

Mr. Evert Larsson

Ms. Ann-Margret Massoberg

Ms. Barbro Puumalainen

Mr. Roy Rundlöf

Mr. Gustav Sandberg

Mr. Ingemar Svensson

Mr. Lars Svensson

Mr. Gunnar Torstensson

b) The Government will pay the sum of 5.000 SEK to each of:

Ms. Adele Olsson

Mr. Gunnar Olsson

Mr. Lars-Eric Persson

Ms. Marianne Persson

c) The Government will pay the sum of 3.333 SEK to each of:

Ms. Ingegerd Hedborn

Mr. Michael Hedborn

Ms. Lena Lundin

d) The Government will pay the above applicants' legal costs in the

amount of 20.000 SEK.

e) The above applicants declare that they have no further claims in

the matter based on the facts dealt with in the above decision

of the Commission of 2 December 1992.

_________________________

This settlement is dependent upon the formal approval of the

Government.

Stockholm 1993 Lund 1993

Carl Henrik Ehrenkrona Göran Ravnsborg

Agent of the Swedish Counsel for the

Government applicants"

23. On 22 December 1993 the Government informed the Commission that

the above agreement had been confirmed by the Cabinet on

25 November 1993.

24. Having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, the

Commission considered that the friendly settlement reached between the

28 applicants and the Government had been secured on the basis of

respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.

25. In the absence of any reply from applicant no. 21 the

Commission further concluded, on the basis of Article 30 para. 1 (a)

of the Convention, that he no longer intends to pursue his application.

It further found that respect for human rights, as defined in the

Convention, did not require the continuation of the examination of his

complaint.

26. For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES INSOFAR

AS LODGED BY LARS OLSSON (APPLICANT NO. 21) AND, IN THIS

RESPECT, TO ADOPT THE PRESENT REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH

ARTICLE 30 PARA. 2 OF THE CONVENTION;

DECIDES, AS FAR AS THE REMAINING APPLICANTS ARE CONCERNED, TO

ADOPT THE PRESENT REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 28 PARA. 2

OF THE CONVENTION; and

DECIDES TO SEND THE REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS for

information, to send it also to the parties and to publish it.

Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber

(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)

ANNEX

The applicants are:

1. Mr. Arvid Andersson, born in 1914 and resident at Ljungskile;

2. Mr. Evert Andersson, a farmer born in 1934 and resident at

Ödsmål;

3. Mr. Kjell Berntsson, a carpenter born in 1947 and resident at

Ödsmål;

4. Mr. Bengt-Åke Emanuelsson, born in 1943 and resident at

Ljungskile;

5. Ms. Ingegerd Hedborn, born in 1923 and resident at Ljungskile;

6. Mr. Michael Hedborn, born in 1955 and resident at Ljungskile;

7. Mr. Göran Hermansson, a farmer born in 1932 and resident at

Ödsmål;

8. Ms. Marianne Isaksson, born in 1945 and resident at Svenshögen;

9. Ms. Lily Jacobsson, a cook born in 1933 and resident at Ödsmål;

10. Ms. Agnes Johansson, born in 1901 and resident at Ljungskile;

11. Mr. Gösta Johansson, a crane operator born in 1937 and resident

at Svenshögen;

12. Mr. Bosse Karlsson, a manager born in 1951 and resident at

Svenshögen;

13. Mr. Kjell Karlsson, a farmer born in 1953 and resident at

Ljungskile;

14. Ms. Freda Keillor, a saleswoman born in 1942 and resident at

Ljungskile;

15. Mr. Conny Krantz, an engineer born in 1951 and resident at

Ödsmål;

16. Mr. Evert Larsson, a director born in 1931 and resident at

Ljungskile;

17. Ms. Lena Lundin, born in 1961 and resident at Ljungskile;

18. Ms. Ann-Margret Massoberg, a teacher born in 1935 and resident

at Ljungskile;

19. Ms. Adele Olsson, a clerk born in 1926 and resident at

Stenungsund;

20. Mr. Gunnar Olsson, a farmer born in 1929 and resident at

Stenungsund;

21. Mr. Lars Olsson, a farmer born in 1954 and resident at

Ljungskile;

22. Mr. Lars-Eric Persson, a police inspector born in 1939 and

resident at Ljungskile;

23. Ms. Marianne Persson, a housewife born in 1939 and resident at

Ljungskile;

24. Ms. Barbro Puumalainen, a child care-taker resident at Ödsmål;

25. Mr. Roy Rundlöf, a port dealer born in 1949 and resident at

Svenshögen;

26. Mr. Gustav Sandberg, born in 1911 and resident at Svenshögen;

27. Mr. Ingemar Svensson, a farmer born in 1943 and resident at

Stenungsund;

28. Mr. Lars Svensson, a farmer born in 1934 and resident at

Ödsmål; and

29. Mr. Gunnar Torstensson, a manager born in 1935 and resident at

Trollhättan.

Menu

ANDERSSON AND 28 OTHERS v. SWEDEN

ANDERSSON AND 28 OTHERS v. SWEDEN