Lexploria

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

SECOND CHAMBER

Application No. 12526/86

Elsa BJÖRKGREN and Sture ED

against

SWEDEN

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 10 April 1991)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION

1. This Report relates to Application No. 12526/86 introduced

against Sweden by Mrs. Elsa Björkgren and Mr. Sture Ed on 10 June 1986

under Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights

and Fundamental Freedoms. The application was registered on 10

November 1986.

The applicants were represented by Mr. Jan Axelsson, a lawyer

practising in Stockholm.

The Government of Sweden were represented by their Agent,

initially Mr. Hans Corell, Under-Secretary for Legal and Consular

Affairs, and subsequently Mr. Carl Henrik Ehrenkrona, Legal Adviser,

both at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Stockholm.

2. On 7 January 1991 the European Commission of Human Rights declared

the application admissible insofar as it related to the applicants'

complaint of absence of a court determination of the lawfulness of an

expropriation permit regarding their property (Article 6 para. 1 and

Article 13 of the Convention). The remainder of the application was

declared inadmissible. The Commission 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. On 8 April 1991 the Commission, having consulted the parties,

decided to refer the application to the Second Chamber.

4. The Commission (Second Chamber) found that the parties had

reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 10 April 1991 it

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

the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of

the solution reached.

The following members were present when the Report was

adopted:

MM. S. TRECHSEL, President of the Chamber

G. SPERDUTI

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. WEITZEL

H.G. SCHERMERS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Mr. F. MARTINEZ

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

5. The original applicants were Swedish citizens living in

Johanneshov and Stockholm, respectively. Following the first

applicant's death on 4 January 1990 the application was pursued by her

husband and sole heir, Mr. Tage Björkgren.

6. The applicants owned real property in Nacka which they had

acquired as a gift from their father in 1954.

7. Previously, Regulations for Non-Planned Areas (utomplans-

bestämmelser) had been introduced, requiring a permit for construction

on the property. Furthermore, a prohibition on construction

(byggnadsförbud) had entered into force, preventing the construction

of new buildings or major alterations of buildings resulting in urban

development within an area not covered by a town plan or a building

plan.

8. On 18 February 1977 the County Administrative Board

(länsstyrelsen) of Stockholm issued a prohibition on construction of

all new buildings and valid for one year. The prohibition was

subsequently, with certain short interruptions, maintained in force

for one or two years at a time until 30 June 1987.

9. 0n 13 June 1984 the Building Committee (byggnadsnämnden) of

the municipality of Nacka issued a demolition order in respect of the

dwelling-house on the applicants' property, finding that the poor

condition of the house excluded repair.

10. On 19 October 1987 the County Administrative Board granted the

municipality of Nacka an expropriation permit regarding the

applicants' property.

11. On 28 April 1988 this decision was upheld by the Government on

the applicants' appeal.

12. Before the Commission the applicants complained that they

could not obtain a court determination of the lawfulness under Swedish

law of the prohibitions on construction, seen as a whole, or of the

expropriation permit. They further complained that the prohibitions

on construction, seen as a whole, caused severe deterioration of their

property and deprived them of its practical use; and that in

combination with the demolition order, they interfered with their

right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property; and, further, that

the expropriation permit constituted a deprivation of their property.

They finally complained that they did not have an effective remedy

before a national authority for the alleged violations. They invoked

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

Protocol No. 1.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

13. Following its decision on the admissibility of the

application, the Commission 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.

14. By letter of 19 February 1991 the Agent of the Government

submitted the following agreement reached between the applicants and

the Government and approved by the Government on 14 February 1991.

"SETTLEMENT

On 7 January 1991 the European Commission of Human Rights

decided to declare admissible application No. 12526/86

lodged by Elsa Björkgren and Sture Ed against Sweden.

After the death of Mrs. Björkgren in 1990 her husband

and sole heir Mr. Tage Björkgren has pursued the

application.

The Government, Mr. Ed and Mr. Björkgren 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 SEK 10.000 to

each of Mr. Ed and Mr. Björkgren.

b) The Government will pay legal costs in the total

amount of SEK 13.000 to Mr. Ed and Mr. Björkgren.

c) Mr. Ed and Mr. Björkgren declare that they have no further

claims in the matter.

This settlement is dependent upon the formal approval of the

Government.

Stockholm, 6 February 1991 Stockholm, 7 February 1991

(signed) (signed)

Carl Henrik Ehrenkrona Jan Axelsson

Agent of the Swedish Counsel for Mr. Ed and

Government Mr. Björkgren"

15. The Commission (Second Chamber), at its session on 10 April

1991, noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the

terms of a settlement. It further found, having regard to Article 28

para. 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly settlement had been

secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the

Convention.

16. For these reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.

Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber

(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)

Menu

BJÖRKGREN ; STURE v. SWEDEN

BJÖRKGREN ; STURE v. SWEDEN