Search
document

Document text Analytics

WETTERGREN AND WESSMAN v. PORTUGAL

Doc ref: 27329/95 • ECHR ID: 001-3934

Document date: October 22, 1997

Inbound citations: 2
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 3

WETTERGREN AND WESSMAN v. PORTUGAL

Doc ref: 27329/95 • ECHR ID: 001-3934

Document date: October 22, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 27329/95

by Mats WETTERGREN and Anna-Lena WESSMAN

against Portugal

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 22 October 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs G.H. THUNE, President

MM J.-C. GEUS

G. JÖRUNDSSON

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

A. ARABADJIEV

Ms M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 6 June 1994 by

Mats WETTERGREN and Anna-Lena WESSMAN against Portugal and registered

on 15 May 1995 under file No. 27329/95 ;

Having regard to :

- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

the Commission;

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

1 April 1997 and the applicants' observations in reply submitted

on 3 July 1997 ;

Having deliberated,

Decides as follows :

THE FACTS

The applicants are Swedish citizens, born in 1953 and 1959,

respectively, and residing in Stockholm.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be

summarised as follows.

In 1987 the applicants and the Region of Madeira (Região Autónoma

da Madeira), represented by its Regional Government (Governo Regional

da Madeira), reached a cooperation agreement regarding the creation of

a tropical bird garden on this Portuguese island.

By Resolution (Resolução) no. 1607/87 of 1 December 1987 the

Regional Government gave the concession of the area to the applicants

and in October 1988 the bird garden was opened to the public.

However, by Resolution no. 743/91 of 11 July 1991, the Regional

Government revoked Resolution no. 1607/87 and cancelled the agreement.

It was stated that the applicants had not fulfilled some parts of the

agreement, namely payment of the rent and of the agreed percentage on

the entrance fees. Subsequently, the authorities took over the

administration of the bird garden.

On 10 July 1992 the applicants initiated proceedings for damages

against the Regional Government before the Administrative Tribunal

(Tribunal Administrativo de círculo) of Lisbon.

The Regional Government replied on 30 October 1992, maintaining

that the proceedings, according to Portuguese law, should be taken

against the Region of Madeira, the Regional Government being only the

executive organ of the Region.

In their subsequent reply, on 17 November 1992, the applicants

requested that the respondent party be changed to the Region of

Madeira.

The Administrative Tribunal gave its judgment, without a hearing,

on 7 October 1994. It first considered that it was not legally

possible to have the respondent party changed at the particular stage

of proceedings when the applicants had made their request. The

Administrative Tribunal next found, agreeing with the Regional

Government, that the action for damages could only be directed against

the Region of Madeira. The case was thus dismissed without an

examination of the merits.

The applicants appealed against this decision to the Supreme

Administrative Court (Supremo Tribunal Administrativo), where the case

is presently pending.

COMPLAINT

The applicants complain about the length of the proceedings.

They invoke Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 6 June 1994 and was registered

on 15 May 1995.

On 15 January 1997 the Commission decided to communicate the

question concerning the length of the proceedings under Article 6 para.

1 of the Convention to the respondent Government and to ask for written

observations on the admissibility and merits of this question. The

Commission declared inadmissible the remainder of the

applicants' complaints.

The Government's written observations were submitted on

1 April 1997, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for this

purpose. The applicants replied on 3 July 1997.

THE LAW

The applicants' complaint relates to the length of the

proceedings in question. These proceedings began on 10 July 1992 and

are still pending.

According to the applicants, the length of the proceedings - a

period of five years and three months to date - is in breach of the

"reasonable time" requirement laid down in Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention. The Government refute the allegation.

The Commission considers, in the light of the criteria

established by the case-law of the Convention organs on the question

of "reasonable time", and having regard to all the information in its

possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is

required.

For these reasons, unanimously, the Commission

DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case,

the remainder of the application.

M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE

Secretary President

to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant