WIKSTRÖM v. SWEDEN
Doc ref: 11830/85 • ECHR ID: 001-1000
Document date: March 9, 1989
- 1 Inbound citations:
- •
- 0 Cited paragraphs:
- •
- 2 Outbound citations:
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 11830/85
by Rune WIKSTRÖM
against Sweden
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
9 March 1989, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
J.A. FROWEIN
F. ERMACORA
G. SPERDUTI
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
G. BATLINER
H. VANDENBERGHE
M. F. MARTINEZ
Mrs. J. LIDDY
Mr. L. LOUCAIDES
Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 29 October
1985 by Rune WIKSTRÖM against Sweden and registered on 31 October 1985
under file No. 11830/85;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the Government
on 14 October 1987 and the applicant's observations of 7 December 1987
and 12 and 26 February 1989 as well as the submissions of the parties
at the hearing held on 9 March 1989;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be
summarised as follows.
The applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1948 and resident
at Möja. He is a fisherman by profession. Before the Commission he is
represented by Mr. Bertil Grennberg, a patent attorney practising in
Stockholm.
The applicant is the owner of a property called Ramsmora 1:28
situated in the municipality of Värmdö in the county of Stockholm. The
property comprises one island in the archipelago of Stockholm. It has
a surface of 9 hectares and the fishing waters around the island are
included in the property. The applicant exploits the property himself,
being a fisherman. He has the right to fish in an area of 750
hectares. 50 hectares belong to him, whereas he rents the fishing
rights in the remaining 700 hectares.
On 1 May 1985 new legislation entered into force which made
fishing with hand-held tackle (handredskapsfiske) licence-free for
everybody. Thereby the applicant's exclusive right to such fishing in
his waters has been transformed so that everybody is now entitled to
fish with hand-held tackle in these waters.
The 1985 legislation involved in essence an amendment of the
Fishing Rights Act (lagen om rätt till fiske) and a new Act on
Compensation for Interferences with Private Fishing Rights (lagen om
ersättning för intrång i enskild fiskerätt; hereinafter referred to as
"the Compensation Act").
The amendment of the Fishing Rights Act consisted essentially
of the introduction of a Section 20 a which reads as follows :
(Swedish)
"Vid kusten av Östhammars kommun i Uppsala län, Stockholms
län, Södermanlands län, Östergötlands län, Kalmar län,
Gotlands län och Blekinge län samt i Vänern, Vättern,
Mälaren, Hjälmaren och Storsjön i Jämtland får svenska
medborgare, utöver vad som följer av 7-11 och 14-20 §§, fiska
i enskilt vatten med metspö, kastspö, pilk och liknande
handredskap som är utrustat med lina och krok. Redskapet får
dock inte ha mer än tio krokar. Ej heller får fiskemetoden
som sådan kräva användning av båt.
(English translation)
"Along the coast of the municipality of Östhammar of the
county of Uppsala, the county of Stockholm, the county of
Östergötland, the county of Kalmar, the county of Gotland,
the county of Blekinge and in the lakes of Vänern, Vättern,
Mälaren, Hjälmaren and Storsjön of Jämtland, Swedish citizens
may, subject to the provisions of Sections 7-11 and 14-20,
fish in private waters with rod, casting rod, jig and similar
hand-held tackle equipped with line and hook. The tackle may
however not include more than ten hooks. The fishing method
may also not require the use of a boat."
Section 1 para. 1 of the Compensation Act provides as follows:
(Swedish)
"Medför bestämmelserna om handredskapsfiske enligt 20 a §
lagen (1950:596) om rätt till fiske ett inkomstbortfall för
den som är innehavare av enskild fiskerätt, har han enligt
denna lag rätt till ersättning av staten för
inkomstbortfallet."
(English translation)
"If the provisions on fishing with hand-held tackle under
Section 20 a of the Fishing Rights Act involve a loss of
income for the proprietor of a private fishing right he is
entitled under this Act to compensation from the State for
the loss of income."
A transitional provision to the Compensation Act provides
that income received as a result of measures taken after 1 March 1984
shall not be the basis for the calculation of compensation under the
Act.
In the Government Bill 1984/85:107 (pp. 42-44), the Minister of
Agriculture made inter alia the following statements:
The purpose of making fishing with hand-held tackle free was to
meet the public's interest in leisure activities. In most cases no
damage would be done to the fishing rights owner if fishing with
hand-held tackle was made free. However, in some special cases there
ought to be a possibility for the fishing rights owner to receive
compensation. For a right to compensation it ought to be required that
the interference was somewhat substantial. Everyone must be prepared
to accept a certain interference in the public interest without
compensation. Since free fishing with hand-held tackle would not
affect the use of the water for other purposes than fishing the
compensation rule could be restricted to cover interferences which
resulted in ongoing use of fishing in private waters being rendered
considerably more difficult. Compensation should not be paid for other
interferences than in ongoing use of water for fishing. If the waters
had not previously been used for fishing there could be no
compensation. Expectation values should thus not be compensated. The
compensation should be assessed on the basis of actual loss of income
suffered by the individual fishing rights owner as a result of the
free fishing with hand-held tackle. For a right to compensation it
ought to be required that the damage did not appear to be
insignificant seen in absolute figures. The Minister also indicated
that professional fishermen were one group which could be entitled to
compensation.
Before the Government's proposal was submitted to Parliament,
it was examined by the Law Council (lagrådet), composed of two judges
of the Supreme Court (högsta domstolen) and one judge of the Supreme
Administrative Court (regeringsrätten). The Law Council, although
proposing a certain increase in the right to compensation, found that
the proposed legislation did not violate the Swedish Constitution.
When the proposed legislation was examined in Parliament the
Standing Committee on Agriculture (jordbruksutskottet) made the
following statement (JoU 1984/85:20, page 15):
"The Committee supports the statement made by the Minister of
Agriculture that this is not a question of such transfer of
property which is covered by the provision in Chapter 2
Section 18 of the Instrument of Government on expropriation.
However, the Committee also shares the view of the Minister of
Agriculture that it is important that the question of
compensation is given a satisfactory solution with regard to
the protection of the individual at which the said
constitutional provision is aiming. For that reason those
private fishing rights owners who suffer financial losses
as a result of the free fishing with hand-held tackle, should
be entitled to compensation for such losses in accordance with
grounds laid down in the law. It is reasonable that this right
to compensation covers every personal financial loss which the
fishing rights owners may suffer."
Before coming to that conclusion and when summarising the
Minister's reasoning in the Government Bill, the Standing Committee
stated (at p. 13) that compensation should be paid if it could be
established in some case that the fishing rights owner's own catches
have been reduced as a direct consequence of the free fishing with
hand-held tackle and that, as a result, he has had less income.
Claims for compensation should be submitted to the National
Board of Fisheries (fiskeristyrelsen) before the end of 1989. The
National Board of Fisheries decides on issues of compensation. No
appeal lies against this decision. However, a property owner who is
not satisfied with a decision of the National Board of Fisheries can
institute proceedings before the Real Estate Court
(fastighetsdomstolen).
The background and reasons for the 1985 legislation are
described as follows by the Government (with reference to the
Government Bill 1984/85:107):
The reform constitutes a part of the public recreation policy.
From the social aspect it is important for people to have
opportunities for relaxation and activities in their leisure time.
This need increases as leisure time increases and daily work requires
less physical effort. There are numerous obstacles limiting
opportunities for utilising leisure time. Many leisure activities
require expensive equipment. One's own holiday cottage, a craft or
caravan and access to a car are often required to get to recreation
areas. People living in large towns often live far from unexploited
countryside and the recreation facilities offered thereby.
Furthermore, many people who have moved to the towns previously had a
natural and spontaneous contact with unspoiled nature which is now
lost. Recreational fishing means a great deal to these people. All
three of the big-city areas in Sweden are located close to the sea
coast. Two of them also offer suitable lakes in the immediate vicinity
of residential areas. Distance therefore does not have to be a problem
for those who wish to go fishing in their leisure time. However,
recreational fishing requires access to suitable fishing waters in the
big-city areas. In the Gothenburg and Malmö areas it was possible for
everyone to fish on the coast, but in the Stockholm area this was
prevented by the fishery legislation which meant that fishing near the
beaches and in most of the archipelago area was an exclusive right of
the owner of the fishing rights.
Furthermore, an important task for society is to make a wide
range of leisure activities available to all. This is particularly
important since the opportunity of leisure activities and exercise is
of great significance to health, adjustment and well-being in society.
Recreational fishing offers unique opportunities for contact with
nature, exercise and relaxation and it is open to anyone. It activates
people from all groups of society. The social bias often evident in
other leisure activities does not exist in recreational fishing. It is
also an important supplement to other leisure activities such as
boating, hiking, holiday trips and camping. Recreational fishing can
also provide an added source of livelihood, enabling settling in
sparsely populated areas where other sources of livelihood are
limited. An important task for society is to contribute to offering
the public a rich and varied range of leisure opportunities.
Experience shows that active recreational fishing plays an important
part in the social recreation policy.
In the Bill submitted to Parliament, in which the reform was
proposed, the Minister of Agriculture stated the following:
"It is unusually difficult to obtain any clear picture of the
current legislation on fishing rights. This is evident from
the summary of the system of regulations given in the
memorandum. Regulations which at the time they were issued may
have seemed reasonable and fair, now appear difficult to
understand, complicated and sometimes illogical. One of the
most striking examples of this is that on certain stretches of
the coast the public may fish freely with nets but may not use
hand-held tackle. The provisions of the Fishing Act are
supplemented by provisions concerning conservation and
operation of fishing issued by the Government in the Ordinance
on Fishery and other provisions notified by the National Board
of Fisheries or by the County Administrative Boards. This
accumulation of regulations is extremely extensive and
contains such a multitude of detail that it is difficult for
an individual to acquire adequate information as to where,
when and how he may fish. The fact that the regulations are
often considered complicated or are misunderstood entails an
apparent risk of even regulations which are well-motivated
from the conservation aspect being disregarded.
Even today the owners of fishing rights do not make full claim
to their rights, but allow the public to fish with hand-held
tackle and even with nets along large parts of the coastal
stretches now under discussion.
In the light of this I look upon the proposal to increase the
public's opportunities to fish freely with hand-held tackle
as a natural and essential step towards simplification. If it
is implemented, this will allow fishing with hand-held tackle
in both public and private waters along all coasts and in the
large lakes. The only limitation remaining will be the
exclusion of salmon fishing along the coast of Norrland (from
Östhammar municipality to the Finnish border). As long as only
hand-held tackle are used, the reform will relieve both the
public and the authorities of keeping track of where the
boundary lies between public and private waters. Besides the
other reasons favouring the reform, I also consider this
simplification to have a considerable intrinsic value.
As appears from what I have already submitted, Parliament on
two previous occasions, by requesting a proposal from the
Government, has already reached a decision in principle to
allow fishing with hand-held tackle to be free. The task of
the Government now, therefore, is to draw up the legislative
proposals required to implement the reform. Replacing this
reform by forming fishery conservation areas within all
private waters in the areas under discussion is, for several
reasons, not a realistic alternative. Fishery conservation
areas cannot simply replace free fishing with hand-held
tackle. The formation of such conservation areas aims
primarily at improving fishery conservation and not at giving
the public free access to fishing. Furthermore, in my opinion,
fishery conservation areas formed compulsorily, as they often
would be, would constitute a far greater interference with the
individual's rights than the free fishing with hand-held
tackle. Voluntary formation of fishery conservation areas
which can give the public access to fishing-grounds to the
same extent as free fishing with hand-held tackle cannot be
expected within a reasonable time.
However, the reform should not entail any new obstacles to the
formation of fishery conservation areas."
The Standing Committee on Agriculture made the following
statement (JoU 1984/85:26 p. 10):
"The Government's proposal... means that Parliament's
wish, expressed two years ago, is now satisfied. An important
recreational political reform is implemented since fishing
with hand-held tackle, in the future, will be free along all
coasts of Sweden and in the large lakes... It is a strong
public interest to make possible, in this way, an increased
offer of leisure activities to the population in for instance
the metropolitan areas... The Committee also finds it
valuable that the fishing legislation is considerably
simplified by the proposal."
Chapter 2 Section 18 of the Instrument of Government
(regeringsformen) reads:
(Swedish)
"Varje medborgare vilkens egendom tages i anspråk genom
expropriation eller annat sådant förfogande skall vara
tillförsäkrad ersättning för förlusten enligt grunder som
bestämmes i lag."
(English translation)
"Every citizen whose property is taken through expropriation
or other similar use shall be entitled to compensation for the
loss according to rules laid down by law."
Chapter 11 Section 14 of the Instrument of Government reads:
(Swedish)
"Finner domstol eller annat offentligt organ att en föreskrift
står i strid med bestämmelse i grundlag eller annan överordnad
författning eller att stadgad ordning i något väsentligt
hänseende har åsidosatts vid dess tillkomst, får föreskriften
icke tillämpas. Har riksdagen eller regeringen beslutat
föreskriften, skall tillämpning dock underlåtas endast om
felet är uppenbart."
(English translation)
"If a court or other public authority finds that a regulation
is in conflict with a provision in the Constitution or other
superior legislation or that the prescribed procedure in some
significant respect has not been observed when it was adopted,
the regulation may not be applied. However, if Parliament or
the Government have issued the regulation, it shall be
applied unless the irregularity is manifest."
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains that he is the victim of a violation
of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. His property has
been expropriated. The applicant has no right to compensation under
the legislation which was introduced because only actual financial
losses will be compensated and the applicant has not lost any income
since he has not leased out his fishing waters but used them in his
profession as a fisherman.
2. The applicant also alleges a violation of Article 6 of the
Convention, in that there is no court which could determine whether he
should keep his fishing rights around the island for himself.
3. The applicant further alleges a breach of Article 13 of the
Convention in that there exists no effective remedy for the above
alleged violations of the Convention.
4. Finally, the applicant alleges a breach of Article 14 of the
Convention, in that he has been deprived of his property without any
compensation for the reason that he exploits his fishing rights
himself instead of having leased them to others against compensation.
In the applicant's opinion this distinction between individuals is
arbitrary.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 29 October 1985 and
registered on 31 October 1985.
On 4 May 1987 the Commission decided to communicate the
application to the respondent Government and to invite them to
submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the
application.
The Government's observations were received by letter dated
14 October 1987 and the applicant's observations were dated
6 December 1987. On 12 and 26 February 1989 the applicant submitted an
estimate of the losses he had suffered as a result of the 1985
reform.
On 10 October 1988 the Commission decided to invite the
parties to a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the
application.
The hearing was held on 9 March 1989. It was a joint hearing
involving also Applications Nos. 11763/85, 11764/85, 11765/85,
11766/85, 11767/85 and 12091/86. At the hearing the parties were
represented as follows:
The Government
Mr. Hans CORELL Ambassador, Under-Secretary for
Legal and Consular Affairs, Ministry
for Foreign Affairs, Agent
Mr. Ulf ANDERSSON Assistant Under-Secretary, Ministry
for the Environment and Energy, Adviser
Mr. Carl Henrik EHRENKRONA Legal Adviser, Ministry for Foreign
Affairs, Adviser
Mr. Pär BOQVIST Legal Adviser, Ministry for Foreign
Affairs, Adviser
The Applicants
Mr. Michaël HERNMARCK (Applications Nos. 11763 and 11764/85), Lawyer
Mr. Bo NILSSON (Applications Nos. 11765 - 11767/85), Chief Legal Adviser
Mr. Lars-Åke LINDBERG (assisting Mr. Bo Nilsson), Legal Adviser
Mr. Bertil GRENNBERG (Application No. 11830/85), Patent Attorney
Mr. Jan AXELSSON (Application No. 12091/86), Lawyer
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains that the new legislation which was
introduced on 1 May 1985 and gave everybody a right to licence-free
fishing with hand-held tackle in the applicant's fishing waters
involved a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention.
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."
The applicant also alleges a violation of Article 14 (Art. 14) of the
Convention which prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of the
rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention.
The Government submit that the application should be rejected
for failure to exhaust domestic remedies or, alternatively, as being
manifestly ill-founded.
2. As to the condition of exhaustion of domestic remedies in Article 26
(Art. 26) of the Convention, the Government submit that the applicant has
failed to apply to the National Board of Fisheries for compensation under the
Compensation Act. If such an application were unsuccessful the applicant could
bring an action against the State before the Real Estate Court. In such
proceedings he could argue that the 1985 legislation is contrary to Chapter 2
Section 18 of the Instrument of Government and, if such an argument were
accepted, the Court could refuse to apply the legislation in application of
Chapter 11 Section 14 of the Instrument of Government.
The applicant replies that, under the Compensation Act, the right to
compensation is so restricted that it does not cover the applicant's claim and
the courts can only refuse to apply the legislation if it is proven that the
law is "manifestly" contrary to the Instrument of Government, which cannot be
proved since the Act has been examined by the Law Council and not been declared
unconstitutional.
The applicant has developed his reasoning in the following way when
asked to clarify his financial losses resulting from the 1985 reform.
It is very difficult to quantify the applicant's losses. His
agricultural activities on the island are limited. It is the fishing he lives
on, and the family sells the fish themselves. It is true that the proprietor
of the rented fishing waters has agreed to a reduction of the rent. The
applicant alleges that the Act does not grant a right to compensation if the
loss of catches can be compensated by an increased working effort. The
applicant's waters are situated near Stockholm and therefore attract many
leisure fishermen. One effect of the public's increased fishing in his waters
is that they leave a number of hooks in the applicant's nets. As a result the
applicant has had to give up fishing in the summer time in large areas of water
because he has to take up the fish before dawn when he cannot see the hooks.
Moreover, the applicant's main objective is to have the public's right to fish
in his waters abolished. In effect, the new law may spoil the family's
possibilities to continue to live as they have done before.
Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention provides that the Commission may
only deal with a matter "after all domestic remedies have been exhausted,
according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a
period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken". It
is established case-law that "the final decision" refers only to domestic
remedies which can be considered to be "effective and sufficient" for the
purpose of rectifying the subject-matter of the complaint (see, inter alia, No.
9599/81, Dec. 11.3.85, D.R. 42 p. 33). Where there is doubt as to the
effectiveness of a given remedy, it must nevertheless be tried before an
applicant can be said to have fulfilled the condition of exhaustion of domestic
remedies. In a recent case against Sweden (No. 12810/87, Dec. 18.1.89, not yet
published) the Commission found that a compensation claim based on Chapter 2
Section 18 of the Instrument of Government was not an "effective remedy" in the
circumstances of that case.
The Commission considers it clear that some of the applicant's claims
are such that he could not secure compensation for them under the Compensation
Act. The same is however not true for the claims relating to the reduction of
catches in fish and the claim that the applicant has been obliged to give up
fishing in certain areas during the summer period. In these respects, the
Commission notes that the Compensation Act entitles the applicant to
compensation for loss of income resulting from the public's fishing with
hand-held tackle under the new law. It further notes that there is no case-law
supporting the argument that such claims cannot be considered as "loss of
income" within the meaning of the Compensation Act. Moreover, it is still open
to the applicant to introduce an action for compensation on that basis. The
Commission cannot ascertain, in the preparatory works, any conclusive evidence
that compensation for such claims is excluded.
The Commission therefore finds that the applicant has not satisfied the
condition of exhaustion of domestic remedies in this respect. Although some of
the applicant's claims cannot give rise to compensation under the Compensation
Act it is not possible, in the Commission's view, to sever some of the
applicant's claims from the others when examining the case under Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (P1-1). This is so since the question of compensation is an
element in the examination of the justification of any interference with the
rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).
Consequently, this part of the application is inadmissible under
Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) in conjunction with Article 26 (Art. 26) of the
Convention.
3. The applicant further alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art.
6-1) , first sentence of the Convention which provides:
"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."
The applicant complains that the 1985 Act, without further
implementing measures, interfered with his private property right and hence
his "civil rights" and that no court can determine whether he should
keep his fishing rights around the island for himself.
The Government argue that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) does not grant a
right of access to court in order to challenge a law. The Commission
recalls that in the James and Others judgment (Eur. Court H.R.,
judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, p. 46, para. 81), the
Court stated:
"Confirmation of this analysis is to be found in the fact
that Article 6 § 1 (Art. 6-1) does not require that there be a national
court with competence to invalidate or override national law.
In the present case, the immediate consequence of the British
legislation in issue is that the landlord cannot challenge
the tenant's entitlement to acquire the property compulsorily
in so far as the acquisition is in conformity with the
legislation."
The Commission considers that the "right" to exclusive fishing
with hand-held tackle, which the applicant had prior to the law, was
taken away from him by the new law adopted by Parliament without any
further implementing measures. A Swedish court could only examine a
claim of a breach of the Constitution if it had competence to
invalidate or set aside a law adopted by Parliament. However, it
follows from what has been said above that Article 6 para.1 (Art. 6-1) does not
guarantee access to court for such a claim.
The Commission further considers that, insofar as the
applicant can be said to claim loss of income as a result of the
fishing reform, he has access to court.
Accordingly, the application is, in this respect, manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
4. The applicant also alleges a violation of Article 13 (Art. 13) of 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."
Article 13 (Art; 13) does not guarantee a remedy whereby a Contracting
State's laws as such can be challenged before a national authority on
the ground of being contrary to the Convention or to corresponding
domestic legal norms (James and Others judgment, loc. cit., p. 47,
para. 85).
The applicant's allegations of violations of the rights of the
Convention are directed at the effects of the Fishing Rights Act and
the Compensation Act.
It follows from what has been said above that Article 13
(Art. 13) does not entitle the applicant to any remedy for such allegations.
Accordingly, there is no appearance of a violation of
Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention.
It follows that the application is also in this respect manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H. C. KRUGER) (C. A. NØRGAARD)