SECOND CHAMBER

                      AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 13247/87

                      by Hans JÄDERGÅRD and Others

                      against Sweden

        The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber)

sitting in private on 8 July 1991, the following members being

present:

              MM. S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber

                  G. JÖRUNDSSON

                  A. WEITZEL

                  H.G. SCHERMERS

             Mrs.  G. H. THUNE

             Mr.  F. MARTINEZ RUIZ

             Mrs.  J. LIDDY

             MM.  J.-C. GEUS

                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

             Mr.  K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Second 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 1 December 1986

by Hans JÄDERGÅRD and Others against Sweden and registered on

29 September 1987 under file No. 13247/87;

        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

        Having regard to the observations submitted by the Government

on 6 November 1990 and 25 March 1991 as well as the observations

submitted by the applicants on 12 December 1990, 19 February and

22 April 1991;

        Having regard to the Commission's decision of 26 February 1991

to refer the application to the Second Chamber;

        Having deliberated;

        Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

        The applicants are set out in the Annex.  Applicants No. 11

and 12 are Austrian citizens, the others are Swedish citizens.  The

applicants are members of the Tyresö-Dyviksudds Tomtägareförening, a

local association of property owners.  They are represented before the

Commission by the first applicant, Mr.  Hans Jädergård, who is the

Chairman of the said association.

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

summarised as follows.

Particular circumstances of the case

        The applicants own properties in the area of Dyviksudde in the

municipality of Tyresö.  On the properties the applicants have erected

buildings.  (The surface of the respective main buildings is set out

in the Annex.)  The area is subject to a building plan adopted in

1954, providing that on each property only one dwelling house could be

erected.  The building surface could not exceed 150 m2, with the

exception of the right to furnish an attic, the total building

surface then amounting to 250 m2.  An outhouse or a garage could not

exceed 40 m2.  Furthermore, no water closets could be installed.

        On 18 March 1969 the County Administrative Board

(länsstyrelsen) of the County of Stockholm confirmed new regulations

in the building plan for the area, to the effect that main houses

could not exceed 70 m2.  There was no longer a right to furnish an

attic.  Outhouses were limited to 30 m2.  The purpose of the amendment

to the regulations was to prevent permanent residence in the area.

        Property owners in the area appealed to the Government which

on 30 June 1972 upheld the decision.

        On 4 May 1979 the County Administrative Board issued a

building prohibition pursuant to Section 109 of the 1947 Building Act

(byggnadslagen, hereinafter "the 1947 Act") pending the adoption of a

new building plan with a further restriction on construction from

70 m2 to 50 m2 for a main building.

        Upon appeal by the property owners, this decision was

quashed by the Government (Ministry of Housing) on 30 April 1980.

        On 18 January 1984 the County Administrative Board again

issued a building prohibition pursuant to Section 109 of the 1947

Act.  The applicants' appeals against this decision were rejected by

the Government on 14 June 1984.

        On 30 August 1984 the municipal assembly (kommunfullmäktige)

of Tyresö adopted new regulations in the building plan covering the

applicants' properties, to the effect that main houses could not exceed

50 m2 and outhouses were limited to 30 m2.

        On 21 February 1985 the County Administrative Board under

Section 108 of the 1947 Act confirmed these regulations.

        Appeals were lodged with the Government, inter alia, by the

above-mentioned property association and by applicants Nos. 2-4, 14,

17 and 24.

        They alleged inter alia that the County Administrative Board's

decision was based on incorrect information after an incorrect

procedure, that it was contrary to previous case-law and relevant

legal principles, and that the individuals would suffer serious

financial damage without this being in the general interest.

        On 5 June 1986 the Government rejected the appeals.  They

firstly stated that the property association had no right to appeal,

but since this appeal had been signed by the first applicant, it was

considered as lodged by him.  On the merits of the appeals the

Government stated, inter alia, that the aim of the new regulations was

to prevent leisure houses from being transformed into permanent

residences.  As regards Dyviksudd, the Government noted that many

existing houses already exceeded the 50 m2 limit and would thus be in

conflict with the plan.  Moreover, in the said area permanent

residences had rather gone down than increased.  Nevertheless, the

municipality's interest of preventing the risk of permanent residences

in that area outweighed the property owners' interest in keeping their

previous building rights.  The Government further noted certain

transitional regulations, according to which construction on existing

buildings was permitted, provided that it would not increase the

building surface or the number of floors.  Buildings which were

destroyed or damaged by accident could be re-erected, irrespective of

the new regulations.  If an existing main house exceeded 50 m2 and

provided that the erection of a smaller outhouse did not risk creating

a permanent residence, the Building Committee could grant an exemption

from the building plan.

Relevant domestic law

        Up to 1 July 1987 a property owner's right to erect buildings

on his property was regulated in the 1947 Act and the 1959 Ordinance.

        Section 1 of the 1947 Act provided that construction on a

property required a building permit, insofar as this followed from

rules laid down by the Government.  Such rules were to be found in

Section 54 of the 1959 Building Ordinance (byggnadsstadgan, herein-

after "the 1959 Ordinance").  A permit was required for all new

constructions, except certain buildings for public use, or smaller

additions to existing residences and farms or smaller houses on such

estates.

        Section 5 of the 1947 Act called for an examination of whether

the property was suitable from a general point of view for building

purposes.  Such examination should be carried out 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 could be made when

an application for a building permit was examined.

        Under Section 109 of the 1947 Act the County Administrative

Board could, if the question of the establishment of a building plan

or of an amendment to such a plan had arisen, on the municipality's

request issue a building prohibition pertaining to that area for a

period of one year.  Such a prohibition could be prolonged at most for

two years at a time.  Exemptions could be granted by the County

Administrative Board or by the Building Committee.

        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, could be appealed to the

Government.

        A person, who wished to erect a building, for which a permit

was required, had to file an application with the local Building

Committee.  An application coming under any of the above building

prohibitions was in practice considered as also including an

application for exemption from the prohibition in question.  The

applicant could, on the other hand, choose to apply for an exemption

only, in order to apply for a permit when the matter of exemption had

been resolved.

        The examination of an application for a building permit

involved ascertaining that the intended building would not run counter

to any confirmed plan, or, as the case might be, to the regulations of

non-planned areas, or to a building prohibition, and that it satisfied

technical demands on construction.  In the absence of such obstacles,

a permit was to be granted.

        If the intended construction required an exemption of any kind,

the Building Committee also had to take a decision on this matter.  In

case the Committee lacked legal competence to do so, it would normally

refer the application, as regards the exemption, to the County

Administrative Board, suspending its decision on the permit issue,

pending the outcome of the exemption issue.

        Decisions by the Building Committee to refuse building permits

and to refuse exemptions from building prohibitions could be appealed

to the County Administrative Board.

        A decision by the County Administrative Board to reject an

appeal against the Building Committee's decision refusing exemption

from a building prohibition could be appealed to the Government.

However, an appeal against a decision of the County Administrative

Board to reject an appeal regarding an application for a building

permit was to be lodged with the Administrative Court of Appeal

(kammarrätten).  A decision by the Administrative Court of Appeal

could be appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (regerings-

rätten), which could refuse leave to appeal.

        A decision by the County Administrative Board which resolved

both issues (the building permit and the exemption from the building

prohibition) could be appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal.

If the Court found that an exemption was not required, the matter was

subsequently processed as a case relating only to the question of a

building permit.  Otherwise the case was referred to the Government

together with an opinion on the permit issue.

        There was no limitation of the number of times a property

owner could apply for building permits or exemptions from a building

prohibition.  The authorities were obliged to examine the matter each

time they were seized with an application.

        The provisions concerning the adoption and the confirmation of

a building plan, including the general guidelines for such a plan,

were found in Section 107 and 108 of the 1947 Act.  Section 107 also

provided for the possibility to include special regulations in a

building plan.  According to Section 108, in fine, these provisions

were applicable also with regard to the amendment to an existing plan.

        Under Section 150 of the 1947 Act appeals against the County

Administrative Board's confirmation of an adopted plan could be lodged

with the Government.

COMPLAINTS

1.      The applicants allege that the decisions taken, with the effect

that their building rights were reduced, were contrary to Swedish law,

notably Chapter 2 Section 18 of the Instrument of Government

(regeringsformen), which protects the right to property.  They submit

inter alia that some applicants have in fact lost 80 % of their

initial building rights, this situation being equivalent to a

regulatory taking or a de facto expropriation.  The applicants complain

of violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

2.      The applicants complain of a violation of Article 14 of the

Convention because of the difference in treatment of those who

constructed under the old regulations in the building plan, in

comparison with those who wish to construct under the new regulations.

Applicants Nos. 11 and 12 also allege discrimination on the ground of

their Austrian nationality.

3.      The applicants complain of a violation of Article 6 of the

Convention, since they could not obtain a court examination of the

County Administrative Board's decision of 21 February 1985 to amend

the regulations in the building plan.

4.      The applicants complain of a violation of Article 2 of

Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.

5.      The applicants finally complain that under Swedish law they

have no right to compensation for the alleged violations.  They

invoke Article 50 of the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

        The application was introduced on 1 December 1986 and

registered on 29 September 1987.

        On 6 July 1989 the Commission decided to give notice of the

application to the respondent Government without inviting them to

submit written observations.  It adjourned the further examination of

the case until the European Court of Human Rights had delivered

judgment in the Mats Jacobsson case.

        On 28 June 1990, the Court delivered judgment in that case

(Eur.  Court H.R., Mats Jacobsson judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A No.

180-A).

        On 13 July 1990 the Government were invited to submit their

written observations on the admissibility and merits of the

application, limited to the complaint under Article 6 of the

Convention.

        The Government's observations were submitted on 6 November

and the applicants' preliminary observations in reply on 12 December

1990.  After an extension of the time-limit the applicants' further

observations were submitted on 19 February 1991.

        On 26 February 1991 the Commission referred the application to

the Second Chamber.

        Additional observations were submitted by the Government on

25 March and by the applicants on 22 April 1991.

THE LAW

1.      The applicants complain that the decisions taken, with the

effect that their building rights were reduced, were contrary to

Swedish law.  They allege inter alia that some applicants have lost 80%

of their initial building rights, this amounting to a regulatory

taking or a de facto expropriation.  They invoke Article 1 of Protocol

No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention, which reads:

"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."

(a)     The Commission has first considered the applicants' complaint

insofar as it pertains to the County Administrative Board's decisions

of 18 March 1969 and of 18 January 1984 reducing the applicants' right

to construction on their properties.

        The Commission is not competent to decide whether or not

the facts alleged by the applicant disclose any appearance of a

violation of the Convention as Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention

provides that the Commission "may only deal with the matter ... within

a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was

taken". According to the Commission's established case-law the "final

decision" within the meaning of Article 26 (Art. 26) refers solely to

the final decision involved in the exhaustion of all domestic remedies

according to the generally recognised rules of international law.  In

particular, only a remedy which is "effective and sufficient" can be

considered for this purpose (see e.g.  No. 654/59, Dec. 3.6.60,

Yearbook 4 pp. 276, 282; No. 9266/81, Dec. 28.1.83, D.R. 30 pp. 155,

187).

        In the present case, for the reasons set out under para. 3

below, the respective final decisions are the Government's decisions

of 30 June 1972 and 14 June 1984.  The application was submitted to

the Commission on 1 December 1986, that is, more than six months after

the dates of those decisions.  Furthermore, an examination of the

application does not disclose the existence of any special

circumstances which might have interrupted or suspended the six month

period following those decisions.

        It follows that the complaint has in this respect been

introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3

(Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

(b)     The Commission has secondly considered the complaint insofar

as it pertains to the County Administrative Board's decision of

21 February 1985.  It considers that it is not necessary to resolve

the question whether applicants Nos. 5-13, 15-16, 18-23 and 25-26 have

exhausted domestic remedies with regard to their complaint under

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), as, in any case, the complaint is

manifestly ill-founded for the reasons below.

        Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) comprises three distinct rules.

The first rule, set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph,

is of a general nature and enunciates the principle of peaceful

enjoyment of property; the second rule, contained in the second

sentence of the same paragraph, covers deprivation of possessions and

makes it subject to certain conditions; and the third rule, stated in

the second paragraph, recognises that Contracting States are entitled,

amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance

with the general interest.  The three rules are not "distinct" in the

sense of being unconnected:  the second and third rules are concerned

with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful

enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light

of the general principle enunciated in the first rule (Eur.  Court

H.R., Allan Jacobsson judgment of 25 October 1989, Series A No. 163,

p. 16, para. 53).

        The Commission considers that the amendment to the building

plan may be regarded as an interference with the applicants' right to

the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions as guaranteed by Article 1

of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).  This interference falls to be considered

under the second paragraph of Article 1 as being a measure of control

of the use of the applicants' properties.

        Under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(P1-1) the Contracting States are entitled, amongst other things, to

control the use of property in accordance with the general interest by

enforcing such laws as they deem necessary for the purpose.  However,

there must exist a reasonable relationship of proportionality between

the means employed and the aim sought to be realised.  In striking the

fair balance thereby required between the general interest of the

community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's

fundamental rights, the authorities enjoy a wide margin of

appreciation (above- mentioned Allan Jacobsson judgment, p. 17, para.

55).

        The Commission recalls that the Convention organs' power to

review compliance with domestic law is limited: it is in the first

place for the national authorities to interpret and apply that law (see

e.g.  Eur.  Court H.R., Håkansson and Sturesson judgment of 21 February

1990, Series A No. 171-A, p. 16, para. 47).

        The Commission observes that the amendment to the regulations

in the building plan was made under Section 108 of the 1947 Act.  The

measure thus had a basis in Swedish law.  The Commission is therefore

satisfied that the interference was lawful.

        As regards the "general interest" served by the amendment,

the Commission notes that the purpose of the amendment was to prevent

transformation of leisure houses into permanent residences.  It

further recalls that, 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 (Sporrong and Lönnroth v.  Sweden, Comm.  Report 8.10.80,

para. 111, Eur.  Court H.R., Series B No. 46, p. 50).  The 1947 Act and

the planning procedure under it are in principle measures serving the

general interest.  The Commission concludes that the amendment to the

regulations in the building plan served the general interest.

        As regards the proportionality between the interference with

the applicants' property rights and the aim pursued, the Commission

notes that the new regulations in the building plan reduced the

applicants' building rights from 70 m2 to 50 m2 for main houses, while

the maximum building surface for outhouses remained unchanged.  The

new regulations did not prohibit construction on existing buildings,

provided that it would not increase the existing building surface or

the number of floors.  Already existing buildings which were destroyed

or damaged by accident could be re-erected in their original size,

irrespective of the new regulations.  Moreover, in certain

circumstances exemptions from the regulations in the building plan

could be granted.  This procedure provided a possibility for weighing

the public interest against that of the individual (cf.

above-mentioned Allan Jacobsson judgment, pp. 18-19, para. 62).

        As regards construction which was not permitted under any of

the above terms, the Commission observes that under Section 1 of the

1947 Act and Section 54 of the 1959 Ordinance any person wishing to

construct a building, with certain exceptions, had to apply for a

permit from the Building Committee.  It has not been shown that the

Building Committee would have been obliged to grant the applicants

building permits for further construction on their properties.  Thus,

the Commission does not find it established that the amendment to the

regulations in the building plan deprived them of any unconditional

right to further construction which they had enjoyed before (cf.

above-mentioned Allan Jacobsson judgment, p. 18, para. 60).

        In view of the wide margin of appreciation enjoyed by the

Contracting State in this area the Commission considers that, in the

circumstances of the case, the amendment to the regulations in the

building plan was not disproportionate to its legitimate purpose.

        It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded

within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

2.      The applicants also complain of a difference in treatment of

those who constructed under the old regulations in the building plan,

in comparison with those who wish to construct under the new

regulations.  Applicants Nos. 11 and 12 further allege discrimination

on the ground of their Austrian nationality.  The applicants allege a

violation of Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention, which reads:

"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in

this Convention shall be secured without discrimination

on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language,

religion, political or other opinion, national or social

origin, association with a national minority, property,

birth or other status."

        The Commission has examined this complaint in conjunction with

the applicants' complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the

Convention.

        According to the Court's established case-law, Article 14

(Art. 14) complements the other substantive provisions of the

Convention and the Protocols.  It has no independent existence, since

it has effect solely in relation to "the enjoyment of the rights and

freedoms" safeguarded by those provisions.  Although the application

of Article 14 (Art. 14) does not necessarily presuppose a breach of

those provisions - and to this extent it is autonomous -, there can be

no room for its application unless the facts at issue fall within the

ambit of one or more of the latter (see e.g.  Eur.  Court H.R., Inze

judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A No. 126, p. 17, para. 14 with

further references).

        The Commission has found above Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(P1-1) to be applicable in the present case.  Although the complaint

under that provision is manifestly ill-founded, the facts at issue

fall within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.  Article 14

(P1-1, 14) of the Convention is therefore also applicable.

        For the purposes of Article 14 (Art. 14), a difference of

treatment is dicriminatory if it "has no objective and reasonable

justification", that is, if it does not pursue a "legitimate aim" or

if there is not a "reasonable relationship of proportionality between

the means employed and the aim sought to be realised".  The

Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing

whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations

justify a different treatment in law, but it is for the Convention

organs to give the final ruling in this respect (see above-mentioned

Inze judgment, p. 18, para. 41 with further references).

        The Commission has found above that the purpose of the

amendment to the building regulations, that is to prevent permanent

residence in the area, was lawful and in the general interest.

Furthermore, the amendment was not disproportionate to that purpose.

        Assuming for the purpose of Article 14 (Art. 14) of the

Convention that the applicants can be said to be in a similar

situation as compared with the other property owners referred to, the

difference in treatment complained of must be considered objectively

and reasonably justified.

        Having regard to the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the

domestic authorities and to the subject-matter, the Commission finds

no appearance of discrimination, contrary to Article 14 (Art. 14) of the

Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the

Convention, in respect of the complaint made under this provision by

all applicants.

        Moreover, with regard to the additional complaint by

applicants Nos. 11-12 there is no substantiation of their allegation

of discrimination based on their Austrian nationality.

        It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded

within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

3.      The applicants further complain that they could not obtain a

court examination of the lawfulness of the County Administrative

Board's decision of 21 February 1985 to amend the regulations in the

building plan.  They allege a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention.

        The Commission has examined the complaint under Article 6

para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, which reads, in its relevant parts:

        "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...,

        everyone is entitled to a ... hearing ... by an independent

        and impartial tribunal..."

(a)     Insofar as the complaint has been introduced by applicants

Nos. 5-13, 15-16, 18-23 and 25-26 the Government submit that it is

inadmissible because of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as the

appeal against the County Administrative Board's decision as lodged by

the association of property owners on behalf of those applicants was

dismissed, the association lacking locus standi.

        The Commission notes that applicants Nos. 5-13, 15-16, 18-23

and 25-26 did not appeal to the Government in their own names.

However, Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention only requires the

exhaustion of remedies which can be regarded as "effective".  In the

present case, as admitted by the Government, the decision by the

County Administrative Board of 21 February 1985 was not open to review

as to its lawfulness by either ordinary or administrative courts or by

any other body which could be considered to be a "tribunal" for the

purposes of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

        Consequently, the Commission concludes that the possibility to

appeal to the Government was not a remedy which these applicants were

required to exhaust in order to comply with the conditions in Article

26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.

        The final decision with regard to the complaint as lodged by

applicants Nos. 5-13, 15-16, 18-23 and 25-26 is the decision of the

County Administrative Board of 21 February 1985, whereas the present

application was submitted to the Commission on 1 December 1986, that

is, more than six months after the date of that decision.  Furthermore,

an examination of the application does not disclose the existence of

any special circumstances which might have interrupted or suspended

the running of that period.

        It follows that the complaint, as lodged by applicants Nos.

5-13, 15-16, 18-23 and 25-26, has been introduced out of time and must

be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

(b)     Insofar as the complaint has been introduced by applicants

Nos. 1-4, 14, 17 and 24 the Government waive objections as to its

admissibility and admit a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention.

        The Commission considers that the complaint, as lodged by

applicants Nos. 1-4, 14, 17 and 24, is not manifestly ill-founded

within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.  It must be declared admissible no other ground for

declaring it inadmissible having been established.

4.      The applicants also allege a violation of Article 2 of

Protocol No. 4 (P4-2) to the Convention, which reads:

"1.  Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall,

within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement

and freedom to choose his residence.

2.  Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his

own.

3.  No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these

rights other than such as are in accordance with law and are

necessary in a democratic society in the interests of

national security or public safety, for the maintenance of

ordre public, for the prevention of crime, for the

protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the

rights and freedoms of others.

4.  The rights set forth in paragraph 1 may also be subject,

in particular areas, to restrictions imposed in accordance

with law and justified by the public interest in a democratic

society."

        An examination of this complaint as it has been submitted

does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 2 of

Protocol No. 4 (P4-2).

        It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded

within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

5.      The applicants finally complain that under Swedish law they

have no right to compensation for the alleged violations.  They invoke

Article 50 (Art. 50) of the Convention, which reads:

"If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a

legal authority or any other authority of a High Contracting

Party is completely or partially in conflict with the

obligations arising from the present Convention, and if the

internal law of the said Party allows only partial

reparation to be made for the consequences of this decision

or measure, the decision of the Court shall, if necessary,

afford just satisfaction to the injured party."

        The Commission observes that it has no competence to examine

the applicants' complaint under Article 50 (Art. 50) of the Convention.

        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

        DECLARES ADMISSIBLE the complaint under Article 6 para. 1

        (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, insofar as it has been lodged

        by applicants Nos. 1-4, 14, 17 and 24; and

        DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

  Secretary to the Second Chamber      President of the Second Chamber

           (K. ROGGE)                         (S. TRECHSEL)

ANNEX

                                                    Surface of main

                                                    building erected on

Applicant                           Property        the property (m2)

1.  Hans Jädergård                Dyvik  1:262          68

2.  Conny Bennerson               Dyvik  1:190          34

3.  Berndt Franking               Dyvik  1:255          48

4.  Alice Widell                  Dyvik  1:264          89

5.  Birgit Denckert               Dyvik  1:211          58

6.  Olof M Söderlind              Dyvik  1:297          69

7.  Staffan Wetterling            Dyvik  1:180          70

8.  Börje Eriksson                Dyvik  1:216          68

9.  Torbjörn Lindgren             Dyvik  1:214          77

10.  Yngve Sundberg                Dyvik  1:261          44

11.  Heinz Jelovcan                Dyvik  1:237)

12.  Monica Jelovcan               Dyvik  1:237)         47

13.  Hans Hedlund                  Dyvik  1:258          67

14.  Lars Horney                   Dyvik  1:242          70

15.  Bertil Åberg                  Dyvik  1:182          42

16.  Ulla-Britt Olausson           Dyvik  1:177          60

17.  Åke Åsberg                    Dyvik  1:207          70

18.  Elisabeth Karlsson            Dyvik  1:235          71

19.  Astrid Ryderholm              Dyvik  1:234          50

20.  Bertil Nordqvist              Dyvik  1:236          63

21.  Gun Häggmark                  Dyvik  1:256          63

22.  Rune Thysk                    Dyvik  1:284          51

23.  Magnus Zetterqvist            Dyvik  1:259          70

24.  Åke Nyberg                    Dyvik  1:228         150

25.  Karin Ericsson                Dyvik  1:285          61

26.  Hans Linder                   Dyvik  1:191          53