FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 49297/99
by Jerker ANDERSSON and Others
against Sweden
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 29 January 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström,
MrK. Hajiyev, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced on 23 February 1999,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Jerker Andersson, Mrs Barbro Andersson and Mr Lars-Göran Isaksson, are Swedish nationals who live in Skattkärr and Grundsund, Sweden.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 20 August 1991 the owner of a piece of real property at Skaftö, known as Skaftö-Backa 3:129, applied to the Building Committee (byggnadsnämnden) of Lysekil for a building permit to rebuild a residential house on the property. On 3 December 1991 she replaced that application with a new, revised, application for a building permit. This new application was rejected on 16 January 1992 but the property owner appealed and, following the decision of the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen) of the County of Göteborg and Bohus of 2 July 1992 to refer the case back to the Building Committee, the Committee, by a decision of 10 September 1992, granted the requested building permit. The applicants and some other neighbours to the property in question appealed to the County Administrative Board. Their appeal was rejected on 22 October 1992. Following a further appeal, the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) of Göteborg, on 1 April 1993, held an oral hearing at the location of the property in the presence of the parties involved and, by a judgment of 26 April 1993, rejected the appeal. On 3 June 1993 the applicants requested leave to appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten). After having obtained the opinion of the National Board on Housing, Building and Planning (Boverket), the Supreme Administrative Court granted the applicants leave to appeal by a decision of 2 March 1994. Between April and July 1994 several sets of observations from the parties were received and communicated by the court. By a judgment of 9 February 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decisions and the judgment in the case and referred the case back to the Building Committee. The court found that the measures for which the building permit had been sought involved a deviation from the detailed development plan in force and that the lower instances had not determined whether these could be allowed under the Plan and Building Act (Plan- och bygglagen, 1987:10).
On 9 March 1995 the Building Committee again granted the property owner the requested building permit, finding that the deviations from the plan were in conformity with the provisions of the Plan and Building Act. On 30 January 1996 the County Administrative Board rejected the applicants’ and some other neighbours’ appeal against that decision. Following a further appeal which was completed on 19 May 1996, the Administrative Court of Appeal held another oral hearing on 20 September 1996. By a judgment of 14 October 1996 it upheld the Board’s decision. On 4 and 6 November 1996, respectively, the applicants applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court. On 13 May 1997 and 27 October 1998, respectively, the court received submissions from the property owner and the municipality of Lysekil. On 18 November 1998 the judge rapporteur presented the case to the court. By a decision of 23 November 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the applicants leave to appeal.
THE LAW
The applicants’ complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 3 December 1991 with the property owner’s new application for a building permit and ended on 23 November 1998 with the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision to refuse the applicants leave to appeal. They therefore lasted six years, eleven months and 20 days.
According to the applicants, the length of the proceedings is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government reject the allegation.
The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law on the question of “reasonable time” (the complexity of the case, the applicants’ conduct and that of the competent authorities), and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is required.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares admissible, without prejudging the merits, the applicants’ complaint relating to the excessive length of the proceedings in the case.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy