JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN
Doc ref: 10842/84 • ECHR ID: 001-45395
Document date: October 8, 1987
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 2
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Application No. 10842/84
Allan JACOBSSON
against
SWEDEN
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 8 October 1987)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-14) ............................ 1
A. The application
(paras. 2-4) ...................................... 1
B. The proceedings
(paras. 5-10) ..................................... 1
C. The present Report
(paras. 11-14) .................................... 2
II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS (paras. 15-58) ............. 4
A. Particular circumstances of the case
(paras. 15-30) .................................... 4
B. Relevant domestic law
(paras. 31-58) .................................... 7
a. Legislation on construction and urban
planning (paras. 31-33) .................... 7
b. Plans and regulations for non-planned
areas (paras. 34-41) ....................... 7
c. Building prohibitions (paras. 42-43) ....... 9
d. Application for a building permit
(paras. 44-47) ............................. 11
e. Appeals against decisions (paras. 48-52) ... 12
f. Formation of property units (paras. 53-54) . 13
g. Supervisory functions and sanctions
(paras. 55-58) ............................. 13
III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES (paras. 59-126) ............ 14
A. The applicant
(paras. 59-92) .................................... 14
a. General (paras. 59-60) ..................... 14
b. The facts (paras. 61-68) ................... 14
c. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (paras. 69-77) ... 17
d. Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention
(paras. 78-92) ............................... 19
B. The Government
(paras. 93-126) ..................................... 21
a. The facts (paras. 93-97) ..................... 21
b. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (paras. 98-111) .. 22
c. Article 6 of the Convention
(paras. 112-117) ............................. 25
d. Article 13 of the Convention
(paras. 118-126) ............................. 26
IV. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras. 127-159) .............. 28
A. Points at issue
(para. 127) ......................................... 28
B. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (paras. 128-139) ........ 28
C. Article 6 of the Convention
(paras. 140-153)..................................... 31
a. As to the applicability of Article 6
para. 1 of the Convention (paras. 140-145) ... 31
b. As to the compliance with Article 6
para. 1 of the Convention
(paras. 146-153) ............................. 31
D. Article 13 of the Convention (paras. 154-156) ....... 33
E. Articles 17 and 18 of the Convention
(paras. 157-158) .................................... 33
F. Recapitulation
(para. 159) ......................................... 33
Dissenting opinion of MM. Ermacora and Busuttil .............. 34
APPENDIX I HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS .................... 35
APPENDIX II DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY ................. 37
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the
European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the
Commission.
A. The application
2. The applicant, Mr. Allan Jacobsson, is a Swedish citizen born
in 1927 and resident at Rönninge. He is a building engineer by
profession. He is represented before the Commission by Mr. Hasse W.
Tullberg, a lawyer.
3. The Government are represented by their Agent, Mr. Hans
Corell, Ambassador, Under-Secretary at the Ministry for Foreign
Affairs, Stockholm.
4. The case relates to a prohibition on construction on the
applicant's property. The prohibition has been in force since before
the applicant bought the property in 1974. The applicant complains
that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has been violated, in particular as a
result of the long time the prohibition on construction has been in
force. He also alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 1 as well as
Article 13 of the Convention since he cannot have examined by a court
whether the Building Act has been correctly applied in his case.
B. The proceedings
5. The application was introduced on 11 January 1984 and
registered on 5 March 1984. On 12 May 1984 the Commission decided, in
accordance with Rule 42, para. 2, sub-para. b of its Rules of
Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent
Government and to invite them to present before 20 July 1984 their
observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of the
application. The time-limit for the observations was, at the request
of the Government, extended until 1 September 1984.
The Government's observations were dated 30 August 1984 and
the applicant's observations in reply, after an extension of the time
limit to 23 November 1984, were submitted only on 11 February 1985.
On 10 October 1985 the Commission, after an examination of the
admissibility of the application, decided to invite the parties to a
hearing on the admissibility and merits of the application.
At the hearing, which was held on 15 April 1986, the applicant
was represented by Mr. Hasse W. Tullberg and by Mr. Ulf Brunfelter as
assisting lawyer. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr.
Hans Corell, and by Mrs. Reidunn Laurén, Permanent Under-Secretary at
the Ministry of Housing and Physical Planning, as adviser.
6. On 15 April 1986 the Commission declared the application
admissible.
7. The parties were then invited to submit any additional
observations on the merits of the application which they wished to
make.
The Government submitted further observations on
2 September 1986, and the applicant submitted observations by letter
of 28 September 1986. These observations were transmitted to the other
party for information.
8. On 10 December 1986 and 9 May 1987 the Commission considered
the state of proceedings of the case. On 8 October 1987 the
Commission deliberated on the merits of the case and took the final
votes in the case.
9. Legal aid under the Addendum to the Commission's Rules of
Procedure was granted to the applicant on 12 October 1984.
10. After declaring the case admissible the Commission, acting in
accordance with Article 28 (b) of the Convention, placed itself at the
disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement
of the case. In the light of the parties' reactions the Commission
now finds that there is no basis on which a friendly settlement can be
effected.
C. The present Report
11. The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in
pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and
votes in plenary session, the following members being present:
MM. C. A. NØRGAARD
F. ERMACORA
E. BUSUTTIL
B. KIERNAN
A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J. C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
H. VANDENBERGHE
Mrs G. H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
The text of the Report was adopted by the Commission on
8 October 1987 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers
in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.
12. The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 para. 1
of the Convention, is
(1) to establish the facts, and
(2) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose
a breach by the Government of their obligations
under the Convention.
13. A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before
the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's
decision on the admissibility of the application forms Appendix II.
14. The full text of the parties' submissions, together with
the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the
Commission.
II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS
A. Particular circumstances of the case
15. In 1974, the applicant bought a property of 2.644 m2,
Salem 23:1, situated in the centre of Rönninge in the municipality of
Salem, a suburb about 20 kilometres south west of Stockholm. On this
property is situated a one family house in which the applicant lives.
The property lies about 400 metres north west of Rönninge railway
station. Northeast of the property is a new suburb, Salemstaden.
16. The applicant's property is situated in an area for which a
subdivision plan (avstyckningsplan) has been in force since 1938.
In addition, the property is subject to the regulations for non-
planned areas (utomplansbestämmelser). When the applicant bought
the property it was also subject to a building prohibition under
Sections 35 and 15 of the 1947 Building Act (byggnadslagen, "the
1947 Act") which had been in force since 1965 and to an area plan
(områdesplan-översiktsplan) adopted in 1972 according to which the
property was supposed to be used mainly as a public area, i.e. as a
green space, for streets or car parks.
17. The original building prohibition was issued by the County
Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen) of the Stockholm County on
21 September 1965. It applied to the central parts of Rönninge in
the municipality of Salem and was valid for one year.
The building prohibition has subsequently been prolonged by
the County Administrative Board upon application from the municipality
for one or two years each time. Building prohibitions pertaining to
Salem 23:1 have been issued for the following periods:
(date of decision by the
County Administrative Board) (prohibition valid until)
21 September 1965 21 September 1966
16 June 1967 16 June 1968
14 June 1968 14 June 1969
28 July 1969 1 July 1970
4 September 1970 4 September 1971
30 June 1971 1 September 1972
28 July 1972 1 September 1974
26 August 1974 1 September 1976
11 August 1976 1 September 1978
27 August 1979 27 August 1980
27 March 1981 27 March 1982
6 June 1983 6 June 1984
11 July 1984 11 July 1985
11 July 1985 11 July 1987
18. On 1 January 1974 the municipality of Salem was merged with
the municipality of Botkyrka, but on 1 January 1983 Salem again became
a separate municipality.
19. At the request of the applicant the Building Committee
(byggnadsnämnden) of Botkyrka decided on 28 January 1975 to inform the
applicant inter alia that the Committee was not prepared to permit the
division of the applicant's property into smaller plots. In its
decision the Committee referred inter alia to the fact that according
to an area plan, which had been adopted by the Municipal Assembly
(kommunfullmäktige) on 13 December 1972, the property mainly fell
within an area supposed to be used for green space, streets, roads and
car parks. The Committee considered that the property could not be
used for building detached houses if the plan were to be followed.
20. The applicant turned to the County Administrative Board of the
Stockholm County and requested that the municipality be ordered to
adopt a town plan (stadsplan) for the central parts of Rönninge. In
an opinion of 31 March 1976 the Board noted that only the Government
were competent to make the order requested. It further stated that
the planning procedure was underway to such an extent that the Board
did not find it justified that an order be given to enforce a town
plan.
21. The applicant also complained to the Parliamentary Ombudsman
(justitieombudsmannen, JO) who in a letter of 25 February 1976 replied
that he was well aware of the problems which could arise as a result
of lengthy building prohibitions. He referred to a previous decision
he had rendered and to the preparatory works for new legislation which
was being carried out. However, he found no reason to take any other
measures as a result of the applicant's complaint.
22. On 15 January 1980 the Building Committee, upon inquiry
from the applicant, replied that it was not prepared to grant the
applicant an exemption from the building prohibition or a building
permit for the purpose of building a one family house and a garage on
the property. The applicant, arguing that the building prohibition
was not valid, appealed to the County Administrative Board, which by
a decision on 25 April 1980 rejected the appeal. The County
Administrative Board stated in its decision that it interpreted the
decision of the Building Committee as a refusal to grant exemption
from the building prohibition. It went on:
"According to a master plan adopted on 28 June 1979 by the
Municipal Assembly and relating to part of the municipality
of Botkyrka the property is supposed to be used for building
blocks of flats of more than two storeys. This use of the
main part of the property has also been indicated in an area
plan of 1972 for the centre of Rönninge.
In the opinion of the County Administrative Board the proposed
buildings may be contrary to the aim of the prevailing building
prohibition and hinder future town planning, where the question
of using the property for other purposes can arise as indicated
above.
In view of what has been said above and since there are no
special reasons to accept the proposed buildings and to
go against the Building Committee, being the primarily
responsible organ for the development of the urbanisation,
the County Administrative Board rejects the appeal."
23. On 6 June 1983 the County Administrative Board decided to
issue a further building prohibition for the area in question.
In its decision the Board noted inter alia that the newly created
municipality (cf. para. 18) should have some time to determine its
position in respect of the planning of Rönninge. It also stated that
an application for a further building prohibition would have to be
founded on a time-schedule for the amendments of the plan or on any
other way of terminating the prohibition.
The applicant appealed against this decision to the Government.
He questioned inter alia whether the prolonged building prohibitions
were legal. On 15 December 1983 the Government rejected the appeal.
24. In April 1983 the Building Committee of the municipality of
Salem submitted a request to the County Administrative Board that the
Board should make an order under Section 168 of the 1947 Act to the
effect that the right to construct according to the subdivision plan
of 1938 be revoked. The applicant stated in an opinion to the Board
that he thought that the Committee's request was unjustified since
the plan would cease to be valid when the town plan which had been
announced during 20 years would be confirmed.
In its decision of 23 March 1984 the County Administrative
Board stated inter alia as follows:
"The long duration of the (building) prohibition depends to
a large extent on changes in the objectives of the planning
as a result inter alia of the changes of municipality
adherence which has occurred twice during the time of
prohibition ... . The Board considers that the prevailing
building prohibition gives the municipality sufficient room
in view of the coming town planning. Against the objections
from owners of certain properties, the Board finds that a
revocation (of the subdivision plan) is not justified."
25. On 23 February 1984 the Municipal Assembly adopted a building
programme according to which the area in which the applicant's
property is situated should be used for the construction of multi-family
houses in 1988. On 13 February 1984 the Municipal Board
(kommunstyrelsen) adopted an area programme which also foresees
multi-family houses for the area in question. At the same time the
Board stated that the planning should be given priority.
26. On 11 July 1984 the County Administrative Board issued a
further building prohibition under Section 35 of the 1947 Act for the
area in question for a maximum period of one year. From the decision
it appears that the municipality had submitted a document according to
which work was to be carried out during 1984 for the purposes of
establishing certain plans.
27. The applicant appealed to the Government, which on 8 November
1984 rejected the appeal referring to the on-going planning work.
28. On 12 June 1984 the Building Committee with reference to a
building prohibition under Section 35 of the Building Act stated in an
advance opinion (förhandsbesked) that it would not be prepared to
grant the applicant a building permit. The applicant appealed on the
basis that the building prohibition referred to had ceased to be
effective on 6 June 1984. In a new decision of 21 August 1984, the
Building Committee conceded that a mistake had been made, and,
therefore, quashed its decision of 12 June 1984 and took a new
decision of similar contents since a new building prohibition was
valid as from 11 July 1984. Subsequently the County Administrative
Board dealt with the applicant's appeal against the decision of the
Building Committee of 12 June 1984. The Board decided to quash the
Building Committee's decision of 21 August 1984 and to reject the
appeal against the decision of 12 June referring to the fact that a
building prohibition was in force when the Board examined the case.
The applicant appealed against this decision to the Administrative
Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) of Stockholm and to the Government. On
24 April 1986 the Government quashed the Board's decision, holding
that the Committee's opinion was not a binding decision and,
accordingly, could not as such be subject to an appeal. No decision
has yet been taken by the Administrative Court of Appeal.
29. On 11 July 1985 the County Administrative Board again
prolonged the building prohibition, this time until 11 July 1987.
30. On 20 March 1986 the Municipal Assembly adopted an area plan
for the area in question. According to the Government this is the
last step of the preparatory work in the making of a town plan.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
a. Legislation on construction and urban planning
31. A property owner's rights to erect buildings on his property
were up to 1 July 1987 regulated in the 1947 Building Act ("the 1947
Act") and the 1959 Building Ordinance (byggnadsstadgan, "the 1959
Ordinance").
32. Section 1 of the 1947 Act provides that construction on
property requires a building permit to the extent laid down by the
Government. Such rules are to be found in Section 54 of the 1959
Ordinance. A permit is required for all new constructions, except for
the construction of certain buildings for public use, or smaller
additions to existing residences and farms or smaller houses on such
estates.
33. Section 5 of the 1947 Act calls for an examination of whether
the property is suitable from a general point of view for building
purposes. Such an examination shall be made by planning procedure in
accordance with the 1947 Act, except for areas classified as non-urban
(glesbebyggelse) or as "urban developments on a smaller scale"
(tätbebyggelse av mindre omfattning). For the latter categories, the
required examination may be made when examining an application for a
building permit.
b. Plans and regulations for non-planned areas
34. Plans should take due consideration of public as well as
individual interests.
35. A master plan (generalplan) encompasses the major guidelines
within a municipality or a part of a municipality. A town plan
(stadsplan) or a building plan (byggnadsplan) contains more detailed
regulations on the development of the area. For areas not regulated by
town or building plans, the construction activities are regulated by
the regulations for non-planned areas (utomplansbestämmelser) in the
1959 Ordinance. The developments in areas covered only by older,
subdivision plans (avstyckningsplaner) are governed by these plans as
well as by regulations for non-planned areas.
36. A master plan is to be drawn up by the municipality when
necessary for the guidance of further detailed planning regarding the
structuring and developing of the community. At the request of the
municipality, the master plan may be confirmed (fastställd) by the
County Administrative Board. Complete master plans are seldom deemed
necessary. Instead, municipalities tend to meet their planning needs
by using simpler, less detailed plans, usually described as area plans
(områdesplaner). Such plans are not governed by law.
The Government may decide that a master plan must be prepared,
when needed to further a development which is deemed urgent in the
national interest.
A master plan cannot cover an area which is already covered by
a town or a building plan.
37. A town plan is to be drawn up by the municipality, when
necessary as a result of the urbanisation of the community, in order
to regulate constructions. Such a plan must contain information about
the borders of blocks (byggnadskvarter), of public areas (allmänna
platser), and of special zones, such as railway areas, harbours,
recreational (sports) areas, etc. The town plan must also contain the
further provisions deemed necessary regarding constructions in various
areas, or regarding the use of properties in these areas. The 1959
Ordinance mentions inter alia specific use of blocks, prohibitions
against construction on part of a block, construction methods to be
used, the number of permitted buildings on a certain site (tomt) and
the permitted surface area, location, height, and the number of flats
of a building.
A town plan must be confirmed by the County Administrative
Board in order to become valid.
Should a municipality, although there is need to work out a
town plan, fail to issue one, the Government may order the
municipality to present such a plan within a fixed time-limit for the
Government's approval.
A town plan gives the municipality a right to redeem areas
necessary for public use. The redemption value is decided by the Real
Estate Court (fastighetsdomstolen), and shall be assessed
according to the rules laid down in the Expropriation Act
(expropriationslagen).
38. If an area has become densely populated or if such a situation
is expected to emerge in the area, but this situation does not call for
a town plan, a building plan must be issued by the municipality, to
the extent necessary for the regulation of the development of the area.
A building plan is largely the same as a town plan, but does not have
as far-reaching legal consequences. A building plan must also be
validated through a confirmation by the County Administrative Board,
which may issue such a plan if the municipality has failed to produce
one.
39. A subdivision plan is an old type of plan which was supposed
to be abolished and, where necessary, replaced by building or town
plans when the 1947 Act was introduced.
A subdivision plan was supposed to regulate the situation of
roads and other public places in for instance recreational areas.
Such a plan only sets out the borders between blocks and land which is
intended for public use and should be free from buildings. The plan
does not regulate how the blocks should be built.
When the 1947 Act was introduced it was considered
inappropriate to abolish the regulations inherent in a subdivision
plan until such plans had been replaced by other plans. A
transitional rule was therefore adopted according to which such plans
were to be regarded as building plans in certain respects under the
1947 Act.
40. All four categories of plans may be cancelled by decision of
the County Administrative Board. Such a decision must take the
interests of property owners into consideration.
41. Regulations for non-planned areas inter alia prohibit
constructions of new buildings, unless suitable in the general
interest. The same examination regarding general suitability is made,
whether as part of the planning procedure or as part of the processing
of an application for a building permit for an area not covered by
town or building plans.
c. Building prohibitions
42. Under Section 56 of the 1959 Ordinance, the authorities may
not grant permits for new buildings, which would result in urban
development (tätbebyggelse) within an area which is not covered by a
town plan or a building plan. The concept of "urban development" is
defined in Section 6 of the 1947 Act as such concentrated building
as would immediately or in the near future call for special
installations for common needs (e.g. water supply, sewage systems and
other utilities). Section 56 thus provides for a general building
prohibition for certain areas. This prohibition has been applied in
an extensive way.
Areas governed by subdivision plans are not subject to the
building prohibition under Section 56 of the 1959 Ordinance in
urbanised areas. The County Administrative Board may, however, order
under Section 168 of the 1947 Act that areas covered by subdivision
plans shall also be covered by this prohibition.
43. The building prohibition under Section 56 of the 1959
Ordinance in urbanised areas does not apply to all kinds of
construction. When a proposal for a town plan has been suggested for
a certain area, it may become important also to prevent construction
of smaller houses or changes to a house, which would normally not
require any public supply of utilities. Furthermore, the prohibition
does not automatically extend to areas covered by subdivision plans.
A town plan has to be designed according to the existing situation.
From many points of view, changes in this situation occurring during
the planning procedure may be inconvenient. Therefore, on an
application by a municipality, the County Administrative Board
may under Section 35 of the 1947 Act issue a prohibition against all
construction of new buildings, or against measures equivalent to such
constructions, pending the preparation of a town plan for the area.
Such a building prohibition is valid for one year at most but may be
prolonged for two years at a time. The prohibition is cancelled and
replaced by another prohibition when the municipality has adopted a
proposal for a town plan. The new prohibition is automatically
cancelled when the town plan has been confirmed. None of these
prohibitions, however, are absolute, since exemptions may be granted.
However, exemptions will not be granted, where the planning procedure
would be obstructed by the intended construction.
Section 35 of the 1947 Act reads as follows:
(Swedish)
"Har beslut fattats eller fråga väckts om antagande eller
ändring av stadsplan för visst område, skall angående förbud
mot nybyggnad inom området vad i 14 och 15 §§ stadgas äga
motsvarande tillämpning."
(English translation)
"When a decision has been taken or the question has been
raised as to the adoption or amendment of a town plan for a
certain area, the provisions of Sections 14 and 15 shall
apply in respect of prohibitions against construction within
the area."
Section 14 reads as follows:
(Swedish)
"Hava kommunfullmäktige beslutat göra framställning om
fastställelse av generalplan beträffande visst område eller
ändring av fastställd generalplan, må nybyggnad, innan
framställningen prövats, ej företagas inom område som avses
med denna; dock må länsstyrelsen eller, enligt av regeringen
meddelade föreskrifter, byggnadsnämnd medgiva undantag
såvitt generalplanens genomförande icke försvåras."
(English translation)
"When the municipal assembly has decided to apply for a
confirmation of a master plan concerning a specific area or
an amendment of a confirmed master plan, new construction
may not take place within the area before the application
has been examined. However, the County Administrative Board
or, as the Government may have ordered, the Building
Committee may grant exemption insofar as the enforcement
of the master plan is not impaired."
Section 15 reads as follows:
(Swedish)
"Är fråga väckt om framställning angående fastställelse av
generalplan beträffande visst område eller ändring av
fastställd generalplan, äger länsstyrelsen på framställning
av kommunen förordna, att nybyggnad inom området icke må
företagas. Sådant förordnande gäller intill dess kommun-
fullmäktige beslutat i frågan, dock ej längre än ett år.
Där så erfordras äger länsstyrelsen på framställning av
kommunen förlänga förbudets giltighetstid med högst två
år i sänder.
Från förbud som i första stycket sägs må undantag medgivas
av länsstyrelsen eller, enligt av regeringen meddelade
föreskrifter, av byggnadsnämnd."
(English translation)
"When the question is raised of an application for a
confirmation of a master plan concerning a specific area
or an amendment of a confirmed master plan, the County
Administrative Board may, at the request of the
municipality, order that new construction may not take place
in the area. Such an order is valid until the Municipal
Assembly has decided on the question, but not for a longer
period than one year. Where necessary the County
Administrative Board may, at the request of the municipality,
prolong the validity of the prohibition by a maximum of
two years each time.
Exemptions from the prohibition referred to in the first
paragraph may be granted by the County Administrative Board
or, as the Government may have ordered, by the Building
Committee."
d. Application for a building permit
44. A person, who wants to erect a building, for which a permit is
required, must file an application with the local Building Committee.
An application coming under any of the above building prohibitions is
in practice considered as including also an application for exemption
from the prohibition in question. The applicant may, on the other
hand, choose to apply for an exemption only, in order to apply for a
permit when the matter of exemption has been resolved.
45. The examination of an application for a building permit
involves ascertaining that the intended building will not run counter
to any confirmed plan, or, as the case may be, to the regulations of
non-planned areas, or to a building prohibition, and that it
satisifies technical demands on construction. In the absence of such
obstacles, a permit should be granted.
46. Should the intended construction require exemptions of any
kind, the Building Committee must also take a decision on this matter.
In case the Committee lacks legal competence to do so, it normally
would refer the application as regards exemption to the County
Administrative Board, suspending its decision on the permit issue,
pending the outcome of the exemption issue.
47. It is a practice among property owners to request an advance
opinion regarding a certain type of construction on a specified unit
of property. A negative reply from the Building Committee is normally
regarded as a rejection of an application for exemption and may be
appealed by the applicant.
e. Appeals against decisions
48. Decisions by the Building Committee to refuse building permits
and to refuse exemptions from building prohibitions may be appealed to
the County Administrative Board.
49. A decision by the County Administrative Board to reject an
appeal against the Building Committee's decision not to grant an
exemption from a building prohibition may be appealed to the
Government. However, an appeal against a decision of the Board to
reject an appeal regarding an application for a building permit shall
be lodged with the Administrative Court of Appeal. A decision by the
Administrative Court of Appeal may be appealed to the Supreme
Administrative Court (regeringsrätten), which may refuse to grant
leave to appeal.
50. When a decision by the County Administrative Board has resolved
both issues (the building permit and the exemption from the building
prohibition) it may be appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal.
If the court should find that an exemption is not required, the matter
will subsequently be processed as a case relating only to the question
of a building permit. Otherwise the Administrative Court of Appeal
will transfer the case to the Government for a decision. The court
also makes a statement to the Government on the permit issue.
51. There are no limits to the number of times a property owner
may apply for building permits or exemptions from a building
prohibition. The authorities are obliged to examine the matter each
time they are seized with an application.
52. A decision by the County Administrative Board to issue a
building prohibition or, as the first instance, to refuse an
exemption from a building prohibition may be appealed to the
Government.
Moreover, the confirmation of town and building plans by the
County Administrative Board may be appealed to the Government by the
property owners concerned. The owners may also appeal against a
decision to refuse confirmation of an adopted proposal for a plan.
However, they cannot formally require a plan to be prepared by the
municipality or the County Administrative Board, nor can they
demand an injunction by the Government, ordering a municipality to
prepare a proposal for a town plan.
f. Formation of property units
53. Divisions of units of property are resolved by the Property
Formation Agencies (fastighetsbildningsmyndigheterna). New units are
to be designed in such a way as to make all units concerned
permanently suitable for their purpose with regard to their location,
size, and other conditions. Within town planned areas or areas
subject to subdivision plans, a division must be made in accordance
with the plan. Where other regulations apply to the development of
land, e.g. a building prohibition, the division has to be carried out
so as not to obstruct the purpose of the prohibition. If there are no
plans for the area, divisions with a view to construction may not be
made, if they were to impede appropriate use of the area, to result in
inappropriate development or to obstruct appropriate planning for the
area.
54. Decisions by the Property Formation Agencies may be appealed
to the Real Estate Courts (fastighetsdomstolarna), whose decisions in
turn may be appealed to the Court of Appeal (hovrätten), and from
there to the Supreme Court (högsta domstolen).
g. Supervisory functions and sanctions
55. The County Administrative Board supervises planning and
construction activities - including those of the Building Committees -
within the county. The National Board of Physical Planning and
Building (planverket), which is a Government Agency, supervises the
same fields on the national level.
56. The Parliamentary Ombudsmen supervise, on behalf of the
Parliament, inter alia, the County Administrative Boards, and the
Building Committees, to ensure that they act according to laws and
statutes. The same supervision is, on behalf of the Government,
carried out by the Chancellor of Justice (justitiekanslern).
57. None of these supervisory bodies may alter a decision by an
authority. The County Administrative Boards may, however, intervene
by issuing prohibitions and injunctions. Otherwise, a supervisory
body may only point to committed errors, e.g. by referring a matter to
the district prosecutor to act upon as he sees fit.
58. Those who, in the course of their official duties,
deliberately or through gross negligence disregard their obligations,
as laid down in laws and statutes, may be fined or sentenced to prison
by a court under Chapter 20 of the Penal Code (brottsbalken). The
Government and the municipalities are under certain conditions liable
for damages, inter alia, for property damage, caused by fault or
negligence in the exercise of public authority. Litigations are tried
by the general courts.
III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
A. The applicant
a. General
59. The case which the applicant submits to the Commission relates
first to the impossibility for the applicant to have his case
considered regarding questions of lawfulness and compatibility with
the Convention, by a domestic court entitled to examine the situation
and all aspects of the law under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention
and, secondly, to the duration of the building prohibitions in view of
Articles 17 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
60. For the sake of clarity, the applicant points out that he has
never complained, and is not complaining, of the way planning is
carried out, as long as it is performed in adherence to Swedish law
and in compliance with statutory requirements, nor is he complaining
of the fact that planning takes place and that there are restrictions
as to the control of the use of property. However, the applicant
submits that the instruments for the control of the use of property
have been misused in contravention of Swedish law and in a way that is
also contravening Articles 6, 13, 17 and 18 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
b. The facts
61. The applicant's property is situated within an area included
in a subdivision plan from 1938. The regulations for non-planned
areas are applicable to it. These regulations are applicable to land
which is not developed sufficiently and cannot be expected to be so in
a near future but which can be expected eventually to be developed to
a considerable extent. The aim of the regulations for non-planned
areas is to control the building of houses for example by means of a
building permit requirement. If the area is developed or expected to
be developed within the near future it is to be placed under a town or
building plan.
62. Subdivision plans have, in certain respects, the same function
as town or building plans, that is to define areas for development of,
for example, housing. The intention of these subdivision plans was
initially not to regulate development but to prevent unsuitable
division of land which might have adverse effects on future planning.
Since the introduction of the 1947 Act and the 1959 Ordinance a
subdivision plan can be said to be similar to a building plan. Unless
the County Administrative Board has decided otherwise, it is possible
to develop an area within a subdivision plan. As subdivision plans
previously were not regulating development - in other words the
suitability of urban development was not under consideration - the
County Administrative Board is empowered to prohibit the development
of urbanised areas if it considers this necessary. If however water
and sewerage facilities are available, such prohibitions should not be
issued unless there are very particular reasons to be considered. This
is so due to the inconvenience a prohibition is likely to cause the
property owner. Thus nowadays the aim of subdivision plans is to
differentiate between urban development areas and public property.
63. The subdivision plan affecting the applicant's property
suggests a division and a subsequent development. There is no general
prohibition on urban development in accordance with the 1947 Act.
Although the subdivision plan became defunct in connection
with the introduction of the 1947 Act there were some transitional
regulations. These permitted the said plans to be revoked but only on
condition that existing individual rights to build were duly taken
into consideration. In particular, it was emphasised that a plan must
be revoked if the area in question or neighbouring areas were already
developed to some extent. Further, it was regarded impossible to
revoke the plan if streets, roads and public mains were already built.
If it was not possible to revoke such a plan it was henceforth to be
treated as a building plan in the meaning of the 1947 Act according to
Section 168 of the 1947 Act and Section 83 of the 1959 Ordinance.
In the preparatory works to the transitional regulations in
the 1947 Act, it was particularly emphasised that regard should be
paid to the individual's interests to build. In the light of these
regulations, the legal status of the applicant's property is such that
he is entitled to divide his property and to obtain a building permit.
Nevertheless, the County Administrative Board has decided to issue
building prohibitions in accordance with the 1947 Act, as the
municipality has submitted that a town plan is going to be created
for the area in question.
64. According to the 1959 Ordinance, a town plan is to be limited
to what can be expected to be carried out within the near future. In
the 1947 Act and the 1959 Ordinance consideration of the individuals'
interest when planning is an expressly stated requirement. This also
involves the condition of imminence. This condition is not only
applicable to the time from planning to enforcement but also includes
the preparation time prior to the actual planning. Planning must thus
not be too protracted, something which causes the individual property
owner insecurity and uncertainty.
65. When deciding on an application for a building permit
regarding the applicant's property, the municipality is not to
consider the question of suitability from the planning point of view.
If the municipality finds development according to the subdivision
plan unsuitable, the remedy available to the municipality is to
replace the plan by a building plan.
In this case, where the subdivision plan has not been revoked,
the regulations for non-planned areas are only applicable as to the
question whether the property is suitable as a construction site
considering such things as access to water, sewerage, roads, the size
of the plot etc. The applicant's property complies with all these
conditions; neither the Government nor the municipality has ever
suggested otherwise. The Government have even admitted that the
property is unusually large.
66. The Government have commented on the position of the new
building. The question of where on the plot to place the building
has not yet been considered by the authorities since a building
prohibition has been in force. Furthermore, there is no rule against
two houses being built on one plot.
If there had existed a plan which had made it impossible to
build, it would have been necessary to make an amendment to the plan
in force. However, the plan in force (the subdivision plan) allows
development as suggested by the applicant.
67. It follows from what is said above that the question of
general suitability from a planning point of view is not to be
considered in this case. Suitability was considered when the existing
plan was drawn up. It should be noted that the subdivision plan is
not revoked, only suspended by the prolonged building prohibitions.
68. The problem for the applicant is that he has been denied his
right to build under the existing subdivision plan. His right has been
denied him as a result of the excessive prolongation of the building
prohibitions. It should be noted that there are no legal means by
which the applicant can make the authorities change or replace the
existing plan even though these prolonged building prohibitions are
clearly contrary to the intention of the law and thus can be said to
constitute an abuse of power. The applicant refers to a statement by
the Parliamentary Housing Committee (Riksdagens bostadsutskott), which
in an opinion of 23 August 1986, when commenting upon a Bill from the
Government, said inter alia the following:-
"Further, the Committee feels that compensation should not
depend on long building prohibitions on the affected
property. In certain cases it is a matter of chance if
prohibitions have been in force for the period of eight
years as proposed in the Bill or for only a part of this
time. Further, there are so-called latent building
prohibitions in existence, where property owners presumably
have decided not to exercise their right to build, conscious
of the fact that, if an application for a building permit in
accordance with an old plan had been submitted, the
municipality would have arranged for permission by the
County Administrative Board to impose such a prohibition.
For the sake of justice all property owners should therefore
be treated equally when re-considering old plans, regardless
of whether or not they have been affected by building
prohibitions. The category of people eligible for
compensation should therefore be larger than proposed in the
Bill." (p. 253)
c. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
69. The applicant submits that, in several respects, his case
is similar to the case of Sporrong and Lönnroth (Eur. Court H.R.,
Sporrong and Lönnroth judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52).
As in that case, the applicant has for many years been prevented from
building a house on his own property. As in the case of Sporrong and
Lönnroth, the municipality has imposed lengthy building prohibitions
on the property invoking town plans which have changed during the
course of the prohibition. These prohibitions have been directed
towards the use of the property for building purposes despite the fact
that the building rights had already been granted according to town
plans issued earlier by the municipality.
70. Unlike in the case of Sporrong and Lönnroth, no expropriation
procedures to acquire the property have been started. However, at one
stage, the municipality intended to use the applicant's property for
public purposes in such a way that it could be subject to compulsory
purchase. The building prohibition has therefore, in practical terms,
caused the same uncertainty regarding the use and future of the
property which the Court, in the case of Sporrong and Lönnroth,
considered to amount to an infringement of the rights in Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1.
71. The applicant's property is situated between the development
area called Salemstaden and the railway station used by the
development area's inhabitants when they commute to and from
Stockholm. For this reason the municipality may some time in the
future decide that it wants to use for example the area near the
railway station for car parks for people commuting by rail, and
perhaps they will want to use the area next to the development where
the applicant's property is situated as a park. The reason given for
the refusal of a building right is that they might want to use the
area later as a park and car park or for public use. That involves
a real threat that eventually the applicant will lose his property
altogether. His existing house on the property is old. He wants to
improve it considerably, for example, by installing a more economic
heating system but he has been forced to abandon any investments with
a longer writing-off period than five years as he would risk a
substantial loss in case of an expropriation. In fact, he has lived
in economic circumstances regarding investment and maintenance of his
old property very similar to those prevailing in the Sporrong and
Lönnroth case.
72. The applicant's property is situated in an already extensively
developed area. There are public water, mains and sewers in the area
and the subdivision plan has not been formally revoked. It is thus
still formally in existence. Instead, the municipality imposed a
building prohibition in order to prepare for a new plan. The right to
impose building prohibitions is a right given to the authorities to
allow them some breathing space whilst preparing for a new plan. In
the present case the right has been misused in contravention of the
intentions of the law.
Instead of imposing a short-time prohibition whilst actually working
on a new plan, building prohibitions have been repeated and prolonged.
In effect, the still existing subdivision plan with its building
rights has de facto been permanently revoked.
73. This type of abuse has been noted by Swedish authorities and
has been severely criticised, for example by the Parliamentary
Ombudsman in 1967, whose criticism has been referred to in the
Sporrong and Lönnroth case. In 1976 the applicant turned to the
Ombudsman who declared that the fault was known but was about to
disappear in connection with the introduction of a new Building Act.
74. One of the tasks of the Chancellor of Justice is to supervise
the administrative authorities. The applicant turned to him, and in
1983 the Chancellor of Justice declared that the faults were
well-known but that he could not but "once more emphasise the
importance of detailed planning being carried out with such a vigour
that the situation of uncertainty, brought about by the excessively
lengthy building plans, is terminated".
75. The applicant points out, in reply to the Government's
submissions (para. 101 below), that when he bought the property in
1974 he was not employed by the municipality.
76. The applicant submits that the municipality in fact has never
had any intention of making a town plan concerning the area in
question - neither in 1965 nor later on. Thus, the municipality has
only claimed such an intention to prevent division of property as the
applicant otherwise would have been legally entitled to act according
to the subdivision plan. In other words the alleged work on a
detailed plan was only meant to enable the municipality to apply the
building prohibition regulations without any obligation for the
municipality in practice to carry out any real planning work to create
a town plan.
Not even in 1984 has the municipality decided to start any
work on a town plan concerning the applicant's property. This is
also shown by the decision of the County Administrative Board to
prolong the building prohibition, dated 11 July 1984. The decision is
taken although the municipality's time schedule does not mention when
the plan is to be ready and regardless of the fact that the
municipality has not yet even begun any kind of preparations for a
plan concerning the applicant's property.
77. The decision to prolong the building prohibition, made by the
County Administrative Board and subsequently the Government, is
therefore not according to law and is thus in contravention of Article 1
of Protocol No. 1. The intention of the law has been violated by
the authorities by means of détournement de pouvoir, violations
carried out without the support of Swedish law. From the point of
view of the Convention, it is even more serious that the authorities
have not paid any regard to the applicant's wish to build on his land.
The public interest alone has been taken into consideration by
allowing the municipality to abuse its statutory powers within the
framework of the planning monopoly and by the County Administrative
Board and the Government in reality granting a 20 year long building
prohibition.
d. Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention
78. The Government state that the applicant should have applied
for a building permit at a time when the building prohibition was not
in force. The Government seem to feel that the natural and reasonable
step to take when the prohibition was in force was to apply for an
exemption from the building prohibition. In practical terms, however,
an application for a building permit is also an application for
exemption. In other words, there are no logical reasons to prefer one
method rather than the other to obtain a permit to build during a
period when there is a de facto building prohibition. The applicant
points out that he has made use of all means practically available in
order to obtain a building permit.
79. There might seem to be a purpose in submitting an application
for a building permit since it is possible to appeal against a
Building Committee's decision regarding an application for a building
permit. As long as there is a building prohibition it is however
meaningless to apply for a building permit. The applicant refers to
his preliminary application to build a one family house, rejected by a
decision taken on 15 January 1980 by the Building Committee. The
applicant appealed against the decision. The County Administrative
Board decided that it could examine the case as it de facto concerned
an exemption from a building prohibition. (If the case had de jure
concerned an exemption it could not have been examined as the Building
Committee's decision is not only the first but also the final
decision.) The appeal was rejected on the ground that it concerned a
question of suitability, a question that could finally be considered
by the Government, the supreme decision-maker in cases of appeals
against prolongation of building prohibitions.
80. In order to obtain a final decision on the fundamental issue
of the building prohibition the applicant brought the question of the
prolongation of the prohibition before the Government. The Government
decided on 8 November 1984 that the building prohibition was justified.
81. The possibilities that might exist of having the case
continually reconsidered, at first instance and on appeal, are in
fact meaningless and thus no effective remedies exist as long as the
protracted building prohibition de facto is at hand.
82. The lack of genuine planning of older developed areas results
in a de facto building prohibition, a situation made possible by a
practice invented by the administrative authorities in violation of
Swedish law the intention of which is to enable the authorities
temporarily and for a short period to stop the issuing of building
permits whilst the authorities are drawing up a new plan.
83. The Government have submitted in their reply that the building
prohibition has not been in force within certain short intervals.
Formally speaking this may have been so, due to certain oversights
within the municipal administration. However, as the applicant in his
capacity as an employee of the municipality is well aware the Building
Committee would delay the handling of the case until a "new"
prohibition or a prolongation of the old prohibition is at hand.
Despite this insight the applicant has unsucessfully tried to make use
of one of the periods during which there was no formal prohibition in
force.
84. Following the applicant's request for an advance opinion for a
building permit, the Building Committee decided on 12 June 1984 that
the applicant could not expect a permit. The grounds given for this
were, wrongly, that there was a building prohibition in force. The
applicant appealed to the County Administrative Board against the
Building Committee's decision. On 21 August 1984 the Building
Committee revoked its earlier decision but took a new decision which
was the same as a building prohibition was then in force.
The above decision shows the applicant's situation where local
and state authorities throughout consider themselves as having the
right, without the support of law, to prevent in a discretionary
fashion the owners of land from making use of their statutory rights
to build.
85. The possibility of obtaining an exemption from the building
prohibition against the wish of the municipality is only theoretical
and the formal method of submitting an appeal to the County
Administrative Board and, in the final instance, the Government is
meaningless. The rules regarding appeal do not allow any kind of
comprehensive and impartial consideration where the interests of the
public and the individual are weighed before an impartial court of
law.
86. The prolonged building prohibitions have in reality meant that
an individual's right to build in areas with older subdivision plans
has been set aside - in total disregard of the transitional rules to
the 1947 Act. When these prolonged building prohibitions are in force
no remedy is available before an administrative court or tribunal.
Instead, the final decision is a political one taken by the Government.
87. This change from the case being heard by an administrative
court to its being heard by a political body takes effect as soon as
the granting of building permits in accordance with a current plan is
superseded by a building prohibition. The consequence is a completely
discretionary method of granting exemptions from this building
prohibition. Gaps between the periods of building prohibitions do not
imply any right for an owner to have his case examined before a
Swedish administrative court. On the contrary, it is normally the
case that a municipality, when discovering that the building
prohibition period has expired, quickly decides on a "new" building
prohibition, a prohibition which then prevents the property owner
using an effective remedy before an administrative court.
88. The building prohibitions have been imposed for two years at a
time as this is the maximum period according to the law. However,
these periods have been extended as a matter of routine whereby the
prohibitions in reality are transformed from temporary measures, as
intended by the law whilst a plan is being prepared, into restrictions
of a permanent nature.
89. When the applicant purchased his property he was aware of the
existence of the building prohibition lasting to 1 September 1976.
However, the prohibition has all the time been prolonged, even though
for short intervals it has formally ceased to operate. The protracted
building prohibition, without any practical possibility of any
exhaustive review of the legal aspects, caused an uncertainty for
the applicant.
90. This change from a temporary to a permanent measure, although
noted and severely criticised by the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the
Chancellor of Justice, has not been rectified to conform with the
intention of the law.
91. In other words, there is no possibility of having a case
considered where due regard is paid to the individual's interest to
build. Instead, the use of building prohibitions has developed into
an abuse which has gone on continuously.
92. The applicant submits that he cannot have the whole matter
examined by a court or a tribunal, a situation which is contrary to
Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.
B. The Government
a. The facts
93. Rönninge is a suburb south west of Stockholm. Many of those
living in this area work in Stockholm or its immediate surroundings.
The local municipalities south of Stockholm may be described
as small, old communities which have been affected by the
population increase of Stockholm. During the first half of the 20th
century constructions of buildings for recreational purposes emerged
rather haphazardly in these municipalities. These dwellings were
preferably situated in hilly, forested areas. Around the old
communities, developments with sparse and simple one family houses
grew.
The population increase in the metropolitan area of Stockholm
paired with the lack of attractive housing in the city itself has
resulted in a change of the old communities into urbanised
developments with rather a mixed profile, and in an extended use of
summer resorts for permanent residence. In particular, the conversion
of summer houses has resulted in grave problems for the municipalities
to meet the demands for communications, water and sewage facilities,
schools, etc. The areas in question are widespread, and the resources
have not sufficed for urban planning at a desirable pace.
94. Planning is a technically difficult field, because it must be
adjusted to the existing construction in the area in question. It is
also difficult to administer, due to the high number of property
owners concerned, owners who often hold opposite opinions on planning
issues. The conditions for planning are not clearly defined,
taking into account, inter alia, the coordination of inter-urban
communication. Above all, road and utility constructions are very
expensive because of the character of the ground and the widely
dispersed residences, which offer less adequate resources than would
normally exist for urban development.
95. As regards Salem, the planning is further complicated by
differences of opinion which led to the separation of the municipality
of Salem - which had in 1974 merged with the municipality of Botkyrka
- from Botkyrka in 1983.
96. The applicant's property and its surroundings are covered by
a subdivision plan dating back to 1938. The area is densely populated
- urban development - and therefore in need of a town plan. Two brief
area plans exist from 1972 and 1979 respectively, but the general
prospects for a town plan have been uncertain, mainly due to the
regional traffic situation. In March 1986 the Municipal Assembly
adopted an area plan. This is the last step of the preparatory work
in the making of a town plan.
97. From the documents submitted by the applicant it is clear that
he wants to divide his property in order to build a second residential
house. However, these building plans were clearly against the
intentions of the municipality as regards the use of the property.
b. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
98. The Government admit that the building prohibitions
interfered to a certain extent with the applicant's right to peaceful
enjoyment of his property in accordance with the first sentence of the
first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. However, the
prohibitions were clearly issued in order to "control the use of
property in accordance with the general interest". It remains to be
examined whether a fair balance was struck between the interests of
the property owner in the peaceful enjoyment of possessions and the
interest of the municipality to take the necessary steps in order to
control the use of the property in the general interest.
99. The Government recall that an extraordinarily complex planning
situation exists in the areas to the immediate south of Stockholm.
Circumstances like the large influx of residents, the conversion of
summer houses into permanent residences, the extraordinarily high
costs for the needed supply of roads, utilities and other services due
to the vast areas involved have made the necessary planning extremely
cumbersome. As a result, this planning has taken far longer than
would normally have been expected.
100. The applicant also claims that his rights under Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 were violated by the implied intention to deprive him
of his property. The Government assume that the applicant is
referring to the fact that the area plan assigns most of his
property to public use. This plan was, however, in existence at the
time of his purchase. Therefore the second sentence of the first
paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 cannot apply in this case
(cf. Eur. Court H.R., Handyside judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A
no. 24, para. 62).
101. When the applicant bought the property he was fully aware of
the building prohibition in force and of the fact that the property
was covered by an area plan according to which his property was to be
used mainly as a public area. The Government point out that the
applicant is a building engineer and employed as a technical
assistant by the Building Committee in question. The applicant must
have been aware of the risk that the prohibition would be prolonged
and that the possibilities of dividing his property and of building
new houses on it would be subject to restrictions, pending decisions
at the municipal level on the use of the area in question. Moreover,
the applicant bought the property in order to live on it. In this
respect the planning has had no effect on the applicant's rights. The
Government submit that the burden on the applicant is relatively small
in relation to the interests of the municipality.
102. Furthermore, the building prohibitions have been
reconsidered at regular intervals over the years. The authorities
found them to be consistent with the general interest and therefore
thought it appropriate to grant extensions, awaiting the outcome of
the planning procedure.
103. In these circumstances any interference with the applicant's
right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions is justified under the
second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In the Government's
opinion the interference must be considered as a lawful restriction
for the control of use of property in accordance with the general
interest, namely the public interest of controlling new permanent
construction (cf. No. 10601/83, Dec. 15.3.84, unpublished).
104. The applicant has also submitted that the decisions of the
Swedish authorities were unlawful. The Government make the
following comments in regard to this allegation.
According to Section 15 of the 1947 Act, a building
prohibition can be issued until the Municipal Assembly has adopted or
rejected, as the case may be, a proposal for a town plan. A
prohibition must, however, not be issued for a longer period than one
year. Where it is necessary the County Administrative Board may
prolong the prohibition, at the most for two years at a time. There
is thus no guidance in the provision as to the total duration of the
prohibition. The only conclusion to be drawn is that the need for the
prohibition must be re-examined at short intervals.
In the travaux préparatoires it is presumed that the
prohibitions should be applied in a restrictive way. This statement
has often been construed in the sense that the building prohibitions
must not be issued for long periods. What is said, however, is that
the prohibitions so far had not been misused although at that time
there were already prohibitions which had been in force for a
considerable time.
105. The practice applied in Sweden is the following. The first
time the need for a prohibition is examined, the municipality's
information about its intended planning is accepted. On each
following occasion when the prohibition is reconsidered, however, the
question is examined thoroughly and the municipality must show
that it really has the intention to go through with the planning. As
long as this intention can be proved, there is no obstacle to a
repeated prolongation of the prohibition. The prohibition may thus be
in force for a long time in areas where planning is complex.
In the present case it is evident that planification has been
going on and is going on, and everything indicates that a plan will be
adopted within the near future.
106. It is also noted that the question of the building prohibition
has been examined by the County Administrative Board in 1965, 1967,
1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1974, 1976, 1979, 1981, 1983, 1984 and
1985 and by the Government in 1983 and 1984. It is thus hardly
possible to claim that the matter has not been considered thoroughly.
Moreover, every decision by the County Administrative Board has been
preceded by a re-examination by the Building Committee, the Municipal
Board and the Municipal Assembly.
107. The Government also emphasise that it cannot be concluded that
the applicant would have had the right to build in accordance with his
wishes if there had been no building prohibition. The applicant's
property is located in an area subject to a subdivision plan.
Moreover, the construction of new buildings is subject to regulations
for non-planned areas. Accordingly, the possibility of erecting an
additional building, had there not been any building prohibition in
force, is dependent on whether the intended building would have
complied with the subdivision plan and the regulations for non-planned
areas.
108. The subdivision plan implies a prohibition of the erection of
a building in an area which, in the plan, has been reserved for road
constructions. In the present case the plan would not have been an
obstacle to the construction of an additional building on the property.
109. The regulations for non-planned areas require, firstly, that
from a general point of view the property should be suitable for
building purposes and, secondly, that certain more specific
requirements should be satisfied relating, inter alia, to the building
as such and the possibilities of arranging public utilities such as
roads, water supply and sewerage systems. Although the question has
not been formally considered in the present case, the latter category
of requirements might have been met. However, the erection of an
additional building would have run counter to the requirement that the
property should be suitable from a general point of view for building
purposes. Thus, although the area is undoubtedly such as to require a
town plan, no such plan has yet been adopted. Furthermore, the
planning procedure in progress is aimed at erecting a type of building
in the area, i.e. blocks of flats (flerfamiljshus), which differs from
that considered by the applicant.
110. With reference to these observations the Government contend
that it is most unlikely that a building permit would have been issued
for the construction of any additional buildings on the applicant's
property even if no building prohibition had been in force.
The conclusion is thus that the applicant's freedom to exploit
his property in accordance with his own wishes was, and still is, very
limited. It should also be noted that the value of the property today
must have increased considerably, since the municipality intends to
use the ground for multi-family houses.
111. The Government thus contend that the building prohibition
in regard to the applicant's property has in no way involved an abuse
of the provisions but has been legal, not only in relation to the
letter of the 1947 Act, but also to its spirit.
With reference to the above observations the Government
maintain that the actions taken by the competent authorities in this
case are in conformity with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and,
consequently, that there is no violation of the said Article.
c. Article 6 of the Convention
112. The Government admit that the examination by the Government in
cases concerning building prohibitions is not an examination in
accordance with Article 6 of the Convention.
113. As regards Article 6 it must be examined whether the decisions
to renew the building prohibition were decisive for the applicant's
"civil rights" within the meaning of the Article. The Government
refer inter alia to the Sporrong and Lönnroth judgment (Eur. Court
H.R., Sporrong and Lönnroth judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A
no. 52) and to the Commission's decisions on Applications No. 5248/72
(Dec. 2.10.75, Collection 44, p. 49), No. 6837/74 (Dec. 2.10.75,
D.R. 3, p. 135), Nos. 8847 and 8853/80 (Dec. 5.5.81, D.R. 24, p. 166),
No. 9607/81 (Dec. 6.5.82, D.R. 28, p. 248) and No. 10977/84 (Dec. 1.7.85,
unpublished).
114. The Government submit that the planning procedure is clearly
part of public law. The building prohibition is a necessary element
of urban planning. Thus, it would follow from the case-law that the
applicant's complaint - his aim being to reverse the administrative
authorities' acts within the public domain - falls outside the scope
of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
115. The Government point out that the applicant never applied for
a building permit. If he had done so, he would have had the
opportunity of having the matter examined by a court in case his
application had been refused. It is not suggested by this observation
that he should have done so while the prohibitions were in force; as
a proper alternative the issue of exemption from the building
prohibition was first to be resolved. But during several periods
there was no building prohibition, e.g. from 27 August 1980 to
26 March 1981 and from 27 March 1982 to 5 June 1983. An application
for a permit during these periods would have been processed by the
Administrative Courts, had the lower instances rejected the
application. The applicant has thus failed to use the possibilities
available, including the right to have the matter examined by a court
in case his application was refused.
116. The question remains whether the applicant should have had the
opportunity of having the general matter of the planning procedure
reviewed by a court. In the opinion of the Government this matter
falls outside the scope of Article 6 para. 1.
117. The Government conclude that there is no violation of Article 6
of the Convention.
d. Article 13 of the Convention
118. The first issue to be determined is whether Article 13 is
applicable. The Government have admitted that, according to the
Strasbourg case-law, the existence of building restrictions can
constitute an interference with the applicant's right to peaceful
enjoyment of his property. The applicant can always argue - as indeed
he has done in the present case - that there is a violation of Article
1 of Protocol No. 1. In this situation he is entitled to an
effective remedy in accordance with Article 13.
119. The Government recall that the decisions by the Building
Committee to refuse building permits and exemptions from the building
prohibition may be appealed to the County Administrative Board. A
decision by this Board to issue a building prohibition may be appealed
to the Government. The same appeal can be made in case the Board
refuses an exemption from building prohibitions and if the Board
rejects an appeal against a decision by a Building Committee not to
grant an exemption. On the other hand, the County Administrative
Board's decision to reject an appeal regarding an application for a
building permit is appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal and
from that Court to the Supreme Administrative Court.
120. Special provisions apply if a decision by the County
Administrative Board has resolved both issues, that of the permit and
the question of exemption. The matter is then dealt with by the
Administrative Court of Appeal. Should this Court come to the
conclusion that an exemption is not required, then the matter will be
processed as a simple matter of permit. Otherwise the Court will
transfer the matter - together with a statement - to the Government
for a decision.
121. In the present case it turns out that the applicant has had
his matter reviewed by the Building Committee, by the County
Administrative Board and by the Government on several occasions.
There is thus a remedy.
122. The question then arises whether this remedy is effective. In
the Government's opinion it is indeed effective. It is within the
powers of all bodies with which an appeal is lodged to reverse the
decision appealed against. It is thus possible for the Government to
grant an exemption from a building prohibition, in case such exemption
is denied by lower bodies. However, the applicant has not been
granted an exemption. But this is another matter. Whether exemption
should be granted is a matter which must be assessed with reference to
the circumstances in each particular case. The competent authorities
have not considered that exemption should be granted to the applicant
in this particular case. This fact, however, does not mean that the
remedy is not effective. In order for a remedy to be effective it is
only required that the reviewing body is vested with the power to
review the matter and has the possibility of changing the decision
appealed against.
123. Appeals can be lodged not only against decisions not to grant
exemption but also against a decision to issue a building prohibition
as such. Such prohibitions are issued by the County Adminstrative
Board, and appeals are made to the Government. In the present case
the County Administrative Board made decisions on 6 June 1983 and
11 July 1984. Both decisions were appealed against by the applicant.
The Government rejected the appeals on 15 December 1983 and 8 November
1984 respectively.
124. To sum up, the applicant has had the possibility to have all
the decisions which he opposes examined by an authority other than the
authority that made the original decision. Had he applied for a
building permit he could also have had the matter revised by an
administrative court.
125. It could be added in this context that in 1983 both the County
Administrative Board and the Government demanded that the municipality
should speed up the planification. It is possible that these demands
caused the municipality to take the decisions in February and March
1984 to give priority to the planification in the area where the
applicant's property is situated and to state that the exploitation
should take place in 1988. The conclusion can be drawn, both from the
decision of the County Administrative Board and from the decision of
the Government, that a prolongation of the prohibition would have been
refused, if it were not for these municipal decisions. In this respect
it could be argued that the applicant's appeal, as such, was
effective.
126. The Government conclude that there is no breach of Article 13
of the Convention.
IV. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION *
A. Points at issue
127. The issues to be determined are:
- Whether the prolonged building prohibition on
the applicant's property violates his right under Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention;
- Whether Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention is
applicable in the case and, if so, whether there has been
a breach of this provision;
- Whether there has been a breach of Article 13 (Art. 13) of the
Convention;
- Whether there have been breaches of Articles 17 and 18
(Art; 17, 18) of the Convention.
B. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1)
128. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1)reads as follows:
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful
enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived
of his possessions except in the public interest and
subject to the conditions provided for by law and by
the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way
impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it
deems necessary to control the use of property in
accordance with the general interest or to secure the
payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."
129. The Commission recalls that when the applicant bought his
property it was subject to a building prohibition which was valid
until 1 September 1976. The building prohibition was subsequently
prolonged on several occasions. Under Swedish law, the applicant has
a right to build on his property provided that the intended building
will not run counter to any confirmed plan, regulations for
non-planned areas, or any building prohibition, and that it satisfies
technical demands on construction (cf. para. 45). There is no
confirmed plan which would prevent the erection of a second house on
the applicant's property. The extent to which the regulations for
non-planned areas might affect the intended building is in dispute
between the parties. It is clear, however, that the maintenance in
force of the building prohibition has prevented new construction on
the property. Thus the effect of the building prohibition has been to
suspend the conditional right to build which the applicant would
otherwise have.
________________
&u*&d Mr. Jörundsson did not take part in the final vote but was
authorised under Rule 52 para. 3 of the Rules of Procedure to declare
that he agreed with the Commission's opinion in this Report.
130. The Commission considers that in these circumstances the
continued building prohibition on the applicant's property constituted
an interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of
possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1)(cf. Eur.
Court H.R., Sporrong and Lönnroth judgment of 23 September 1982,
Series A no. 46, p. 23, para. 60).
131. The applicant cannot be considered to have been "deprived" of
his property within the meaning of the second sentence of the first
paragraph of Article 1 (Art. 1). In the view of the Commission, the
interference falls to be considered under the second paragraph of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) (cf. the above-mentioned Sporrong and
Lönnroth judgment, p. 23, para. 60 and p. 25, para. 64).
132. The Commission must thus examine whether the prolonged
building prohibition was justified under the second paragraph of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1). This means that it must consider
whether the building prohibition was "necessary to control the use of
property in accordance with the general interest". The task of the
Convention organs in this context is to supervise the lawfulness,
purpose and proportionality of the building prohibition (cf. e.g. No.
10378/83, Dec. 7.12.83, D.R. 35 p. 235). The question of
proportionality requires a determination as to whether there was a
reasonable relationship between the means employed and the aim sought
to be realised or, in other words, whether a fair balance has been
struck between the demands of the general interest and the interest of
the individual. In determining whether a fair balance exists, the
State enjoys a wide margin of appreciation with regard both to
choosing means of enforcement and to ascertaining whether the
consequences of enforcement are justified in the general interest for
the purpose of achieving the object of the measure in question (Eur.
Court H.R., Agosi judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108,
p. 18, para. 52).
133. The applicant has submitted that the continued prolongation of
the prohibition was an abuse of power by the authorities, since no
work with a view to adopting a town plan was performed. He considers
that the renewed building prohibitions were not in accordance with the
1947 Act. The Government have contested the applicant's submissions
stating that the building prohibition was issued in accordance with
the 1947 Act and that the prohibition was reviewed on several
occasions when it has been found that the general interest justified
the maintenance of the building prohibition.
134. The Commission finds that the building prohibition has been
issued under the 1947 Act, notably Section 35 in conjunction with
Section 15. It thus has a basis in Swedish law. The prolongation of
the prohibition is also provided for by the same sections. The
Commission is thus satisfied that the prolonged building prohibition
was lawful. It is also satisfied that the building prohibition imposed
under the 1947 Act served the general interest. As the Commission
held in the Sporrong and Lönnroth case (aforementioned Comm. Report,
para. 111), "in the increasingly complex and ever developing society
of today, it is indispensable that the use of land be regulated by
detailed and careful planning". It follows that States must have
instruments at hand in order to plan or regulate building activities.
Accordingly the 1947 Act and the planning procedure under it are in
principle measures serving a general interest. In the present case,
the building prohibition was issued to facilitate future town
planning. The prohibition has been reconsidered at regular intervals
and found to be still required in the interest of future town
planning. The Commission thus finds that the building prohibition was
a lawful measure which served a general interest.
135. As regards the proportionality between the interference with
the applicant's property rights and the aim pursued, the Commission
notes the following:
Town planning, in particular in areas which are constantly
changing, is a complex procedure which requires considerable time.
The issuing of a building prohibition during the planning procedure
constitutes an important measure to facilitate the planning, which
in the interest of proper planning may have to be maintained for a
considerable period. In the present case, the planning has been
further complicated as a result of differences of opinions, and the
merger and subsequent separation of two municipalities.
136. The Commission considers on the facts of the case that this
general interest outweighs the applicant's own interests. When he
bought the property in 1974 the applicant must have known that the
property had been subject to a building prohibition since 1965, save
for some interruptions, and he was aware that the prohibition, which
was in force when he bought it, was valid until 1 September 1976. He
also had to expect that the building prohibition, which was issued
while town planning was in process, would when lifted be replaced by a
town plan, which would most likely not give him a right to build a
second house on his property. The Commission here notes that, at the
time of the purchase, the applicant's property was, according to an
area plan, intended to be used as a green space, for streets or car
parks in the future. Later this plan was changed and the intention was
to build multi-family houses on the applicant's property. Moreover,
regulations for non-planned areas also applied to his property. The
applicant must also have known that a building permit is required
for the construction of a new house on his property, and that an
application for a building permit is subject to an examination of
whether the conditions in inter alia the 1947 Act and the 1959
Ordinance are fulfilled. The Commission considers that in these
circumstances the applicant could not be considered to have had any
acquired right to build on his property. Moreover, he could not on
the facts of the case reasonably expect to be granted permission to
build an additional house on his property. The contents of the
subdivision plan of 1938 cannot affect this finding.
137. The Commission further notes that the applicant has lived in
the house on the property since he bought it. He has not been under
any constraint to sell his property. It is true that the on-going
planning procedure has left the applicant in uncertainty as to the
fate of his property. However, in part this uncertainty already
existed when the applicant bought the property. Moreover, any
possible expropriation of the property in the future would be subject
to provisions of law and guarantees of compensation. In short, the
Commission considers that the applicant has been able to use his
property in the way which he could reasonably expect when he bought
it. Although concerned by the long duration of the building
prohibition, the Commission considers, in view of the wide margin of
appreciation enjoyed by the Contracting States in this area, that in
all the circumstances of the case the prolonged building prohibition
cannot be considered to be disproportionate to its legitimate purpose.
138. The Commission therefore finds that the interference with the
applicant's right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions was
justified under the terms of the second paragaraph of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).
Conclusion
139. The Commission concludes, by seven votes to four, that there
has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).
C. Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention
a. As to the applicability of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the
Convention
140. Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) first sentence reads as follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or
of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to
a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an
independent and impartial tribunal established by law."
141. It is established case-law that a decision to issue an
expropriation permit with regard to an individual's property is a
decision which is "decisive" for that individual's "civil rights" (see
the above-mentioned Sporrong and Lönnroth judgment, pp. 29-30, paras.
80-81 and 83 and Bodén v. Sweden, Comm. Report 15.5.86, paras. 33 and
36).
142. The Commission considers that a decision to issue or prolong a
building prohibition on an individual's property, although of a
different nature, is also a decision which is "decisive" for the
individual's "civil rights" since such a prohibition clearly restricts
the use of the property right, as is evidenced by what the Commission
has stated in para. 129. This conclusion cannot be affected by the
fact that the planning procedure, as submitted by the Government, is
part of public law and that a building prohibition is a necessary
element in urban planning.
143. Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention guarantees to everyone,
who claims that an interference by a public authority with his "civil
rights" is unlawful, the right to submit that claim to a tribunal
meeting the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) (see Eur. Court H.R., Le
Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A
no. 43, p. 20, para. 44). The claim or dispute must be "genuine and
of a serious nature" (see Eur. Court H.R., Benthem judgment of 23
October 1985, Series A no. 97, p. 14, para. 32).
144. The Commission finds that in the present case there was a
"genuine" and "serious" dispute, in particular as to whether the
decision to prolong the building prohibition was in conformity with
Swedish law. It notes in particular the applicant's submissions that
the repeated renewals of the building prohibition were not in
conformity with the 1947 Act, that the building prohibition did not
serve its purpose since no planning work was carried out in the
meantime, and that he raised these issues before the County
Administrative Board and the Government (cf. paras. 22 and 23). The
applicant has even alleged that the authorities have abused their
power.
145. Accordingly, the Commission finds that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) was
applicable to the dispute over the building prohibition.
b. As to the compliance with Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the
Convention
146. It must next be examined whether the applicant had the
possibility of submitting the dispute as to the building prohibition
to a "tribunal" satisfying the conditions of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the
Convention.
147. It is recalled that the building prohibitions issued on 6 June
1983 and 11 July 1984 by the County Administrative Board were subject
to appeals from the applicant to the Government which rejected the
appeals on 15 December 1983 and 8 November 1984 respectively. No
appeal lay against the Government's decisions.
148. The Government admit that their examination was not a
procedure which satisfied Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.
149. In the Commission's opinion the proceedings before the
Government relating to the building prohibition did not constitute
proceedings before a "tribunal" within the meaning of Article 6
para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.
150. The Government have not referred to any remedy which might
permit a review of their decisions regarding the building prohibition
and which might satisfy the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1).
151. In this context the Commission recalls that in the Sporrong
and Lönnroth judgment the Court examined whether an application to the
Supreme Administrative Court for the reopening of the proceedings,
directed against a decision of the Government, was a remedy which
satisfied the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.
The Court held that it was not sufficient for the purposes of Article 6 para. 1
(Art. 6-1) (cf. Sporrong and Lönnroth judgment, loc. cit., pp. 30-31, paras.
84-87).
152. It follows that the applicant did not have at his disposal a
procedure satisfying the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) in respect of
the dispute which arose over the building prohibition.
Conclusion
153. The Commission concludes, by a unanimous vote, that there has
been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.
D. Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention
154. The applicant also maintains that he had no effective remedy
before a national authority in respect of the violations of which he
complains. He relies on Article 13 of (Art. 13) the Convention which provides:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in
this Convention are violated shall have an effective
remedy before a national authority notwithstanding
that the violation has been committed by persons acting
in an official capacity."
155. Having regard to its above conclusion under Article 6 para. 1
(Art. 6-1) (para. 153), the Commission considers that it is not necessary to
examine the case under Article 13 (Art. 13). The requirements of Article 13
(Art. 13) are less strict than, and are here absorbed by, those of Article 6
para. 1 (Art. 6-1) (see, inter alia, Sporrong and Lönnroth judgment, loc. cit.,
p. 31, para. 88).
Conclusion
156. The Commission concludes, by a unanimous vote, that it is not
necessary to examine separately whether there has been a violation of
Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention.
E. Articles 17 and 18 (Art. 17, 18) of the Convention
157. The applicant also invokes Articles 17 and 18 (ARt. 17, 18) of the
Convention. However, referring to its above conclusion under Article
1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) (para. 139), the Commission finds no appearance of
a violation of these Articles.
Conclusion
158. The Commission concludes, by a unanimous vote, that there has
been no violation of Article 17 or Article 18 (Art. 17, 18) of the Convention.
F. Recapitulation
159. - The Commission concludes, by seven votes to four, that there
has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) (para. 139).
- The Commission concludes, by a unanimous vote, that there has
been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (para. 153).
- The Commission concludes, by a unanimous vote, that it is not
necessary to examine separately whether there has been a violation of
Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention (para. 156).
- The Commission concludes, by a unanimous vote, that there has
been no violation of Article 17 or Article 18 (Art. 17, 18) of the Convention
(para. 158).
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H. C. KRÜGER) (C. A. NØRGAARD)
Dissenting opinion of MM. Ermacora and Busuttil
We find ourselves unable to agree with the majority that there
has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
In our opinion, the prolonged building prohibitions cannot be
considered to satisfy the condition of proportionality. In order to
satisfy that condition, a fair balance must be struck between the
demands of the general interest and the individual's interest of
protection of his fundamental rights. We consider that the duration
of the building prohibitions was excessive in the present case. The
property which the applicant bought in 1974 had, at that time, been
subject to a building prohibition for almost ten years. When the
applicant acquired the property the building prohibition then in force
was valid until 1976. Nevertheless, since then the building
prohibition has been prolonged over and over again and has altogether
been in force for 22 years. The legal provisions applied against the
applicant, and which are invoked to justify the building prohibitions,
are not formulated in such a way that an individual can reasonably
foresee such lengthy building prohibitions. The result is that the
applicant has, for an inordinately long time, been left in uncertainty
as to the fate of his property. We note, in particular, that certain
of the municipality's plans have implied a threat that the applicant
would even be deprived of his property.
Although we agree that in a modern society building planning
is important in the general interest, we nevertheless think that the
democratic procedure which normally surrounds the planning procedure
must not be indefinite. The Preamble to the Convention recalls that
human rights and fundamental freedoms are best maintained by effective
political democracy. For a democracy to be effective it is essential
that final decisions on matters of the kind here at issue are made
within a much shorter time-span than was the case here.
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 comprises a procedural
requirement, even if this is not found stated in so many words (cf.
Eur. Court H.R., Agosi judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108,
p. 55 et seq., paras. 55 - 62). This we consider to be a particularly
important element in the case. To us it is unacceptable that the
applicant has had no possibility under Swedish law to have his
allegations about unlawful application of the Building Act by the
administrative authorities and the Government examined in a judicial
procedure by a court.
For these reasons, we are of the opinion that there has been a
violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
&_APPENDIX I&S
HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
Date Item
_________________________________________________________________________
11 January 1984 Introduction of the
application
5 March 1984 Registration of the
application
Examination of admissibility
12 May 1984 Commission's deliberations
and decision to invite the
Government to submit
observations on the
admissibility and merits
of the application
30 August 1984 Government's observations
11 February 1985 Applicant's reply
10 October 1985 Commission's further deliberations
and decision to invite the parties
to a hearing on the admissibility
and merits of the application.
15 April 1986 Hearing on admissibility and merits
The parties were represented as follows:
Government: Mr. Corell
Mrs. Laurén
Applicant: MM Tullberg
Brunfelter
Date Item
_________________________________________________________________________
15 April 1986 Commission's deliberations
and decision to declare the
application admissible
Examination of the merits
2 September 1986 Government's observations
on the merits
18 September 1986 Applicant's observations
on the merits
10 December 1986 Consideration of state of
proceedings
9 May 1987 Consideration of state of
proceedings
8 October 1987 Commission's deliberations
on the merits, final votes
and adoption of the Report