EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
SECOND CHAMBER
Application No. 12526/86
Elsa BJÖRKGREN and Sture ED
against
SWEDEN
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 10 April 1991)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1
PART I: STATEMENT OF THE FACTS .......................... 3
PART II: SOLUTION REACHED ................................ 4
INTRODUCTION
1. This Report relates to Application No. 12526/86 introduced
against Sweden by Mrs. Elsa Björkgren and Mr. Sture Ed on 10 June 1986
under Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms. The application was registered on 10
November 1986.
The applicants were represented by Mr. Jan Axelsson, a lawyer
practising in Stockholm.
The Government of Sweden were represented by their Agent,
initially Mr. Hans Corell, Under-Secretary for Legal and Consular
Affairs, and subsequently Mr. Carl Henrik Ehrenkrona, Legal Adviser,
both at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Stockholm.
2. On 7 January 1991 the European Commission of Human Rights declared
the application admissible insofar as it related to the applicants'
complaint of absence of a court determination of the lawfulness of an
expropriation permit regarding their property (Article 6 para. 1 and
Article 13 of the Convention). The remainder of the application was
declared inadmissible. The Commission then proceeded to carry out its
task under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides as
follows:
"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition
referred to it:
a. it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts,
undertake together with the representatives of the parties
an examination of the petition and, if need be, an
investigation, for the effective conduct of which the
States concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities,
after an exchange of views with the Commission;
b. it shall at the same time place itself at the
disposal of the parties concerned with a view to securing
a friendly settlement of the matter on the basis of
respect for Human Rights as defined in this Convention."
3. On 8 April 1991 the Commission, having consulted the parties,
decided to refer the application to the Second Chamber.
4. The Commission (Second Chamber) found that the parties had
reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 10 April 1991 it
adopted this Report, which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of
the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of
the solution reached.
The following members were present when the Report was
adopted:
MM. S. TRECHSEL, President of the Chamber
G. SPERDUTI
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. WEITZEL
H.G. SCHERMERS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Mr. F. MARTINEZ
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. J.-C. GEUS
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
PART I
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
5. The original applicants were Swedish citizens living in
Johanneshov and Stockholm, respectively. Following the first
applicant's death on 4 January 1990 the application was pursued by her
husband and sole heir, Mr. Tage Björkgren.
6. The applicants owned real property in Nacka which they had
acquired as a gift from their father in 1954.
7. Previously, Regulations for Non-Planned Areas (utomplans-
bestämmelser) had been introduced, requiring a permit for construction
on the property. Furthermore, a prohibition on construction
(byggnadsförbud) had entered into force, preventing the construction
of new buildings or major alterations of buildings resulting in urban
development within an area not covered by a town plan or a building
plan.
8. On 18 February 1977 the County Administrative Board
(länsstyrelsen) of Stockholm issued a prohibition on construction of
all new buildings and valid for one year. The prohibition was
subsequently, with certain short interruptions, maintained in force
for one or two years at a time until 30 June 1987.
9. 0n 13 June 1984 the Building Committee (byggnadsnämnden) of
the municipality of Nacka issued a demolition order in respect of the
dwelling-house on the applicants' property, finding that the poor
condition of the house excluded repair.
10. On 19 October 1987 the County Administrative Board granted the
municipality of Nacka an expropriation permit regarding the
applicants' property.
11. On 28 April 1988 this decision was upheld by the Government on
the applicants' appeal.
12. Before the Commission the applicants complained that they
could not obtain a court determination of the lawfulness under Swedish
law of the prohibitions on construction, seen as a whole, or of the
expropriation permit. They further complained that the prohibitions
on construction, seen as a whole, caused severe deterioration of their
property and deprived them of its practical use; and that in
combination with the demolition order, they interfered with their
right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property; and, further, that
the expropriation permit constituted a deprivation of their property.
They finally complained that they did not have an effective remedy
before a national authority for the alleged violations. They invoked
Article 6 para. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1.
PART II
SOLUTION REACHED
13. Following its decision on the admissibility of the
application, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the
parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance
with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties
to submit any proposals they wished to make.
14. By letter of 19 February 1991 the Agent of the Government
submitted the following agreement reached between the applicants and
the Government and approved by the Government on 14 February 1991.
"SETTLEMENT
On 7 January 1991 the European Commission of Human Rights
decided to declare admissible application No. 12526/86
lodged by Elsa Björkgren and Sture Ed against Sweden.
After the death of Mrs. Björkgren in 1990 her husband
and sole heir Mr. Tage Björkgren has pursued the
application.
The Government, Mr. Ed and Mr. Björkgren have now reached the
following friendly settlement on the basis of respect for
Human Rights as defined in the Convention in order to
terminate the proceedings before the Commission.
a) The Government will pay the sum of SEK 10.000 to
each of Mr. Ed and Mr. Björkgren.
b) The Government will pay legal costs in the total
amount of SEK 13.000 to Mr. Ed and Mr. Björkgren.
c) Mr. Ed and Mr. Björkgren declare that they have no further
claims in the matter.
This settlement is dependent upon the formal approval of the
Government.
Stockholm, 6 February 1991 Stockholm, 7 February 1991
(signed) (signed)
Carl Henrik Ehrenkrona Jan Axelsson
Agent of the Swedish Counsel for Mr. Ed and
Government Mr. Björkgren"
15. The Commission (Second Chamber), at its session on 10 April
1991, noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the
terms of a settlement. It further found, having regard to Article 28
para. 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly settlement had been
secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the
Convention.
16. For these reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.
Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber
(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy