The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54
(art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the convention"),
Having regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
in the Sporrong and Lönnroth case, delivered on 23 September 1982 and
18 December 1984, and transmitted the same days to the Committee of
Ministers;
Recalling that this case had its origin in two applications against
Sweden lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights under
Article 25 (art. 25) of the convention by the estate of the late
Mr E. Sporrong and by Mrs I. M. Lönnroth, both of Swedish nationality,
complaining of unjustifiable interference with their right to peaceful
enjoyment of their possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), alleging a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1
(art. 6-1), of the convention on the ground that the questions of
expropriation and compensation had not been determined within a
reasonable time by the Swedish courts, as well as a breach of
Article 13 (art. 13) on the ground that they had had no effective
remedy before a national authority against the infringements of their
rights, which resulted from the expropriation permits and the
prohibitions on construction, alleging a violation of Article 14
(art. 14) and relying on Articles 17 and 18 (art. 17, art. 18);
Recalling that the case had been brought before the Court by the
Government of Sweden and by the European Commission of Human Rights;
Whereas in its judgment of 23 September 1982 the Court:
- holds by ten votes to nine that there has been a violation of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), as regards both applicants;
- holds unanimously that it is not necessary also to examine the case
under Articles 17 and 18 (art. 17, art. 18) of the convention, taken
together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1);
- holds unanimously that there has not been a violation of Article 14
of the convention, taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(art. 14+P1-1);
- holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a violation of
Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the convention, as regards
both applicants;
- holds unanimously that it is not necessary also to examine the case
under Article 13 (art. 13) of the convention;
- holds unanimously that the question of the application of Article 50
(art. 50) is not ready for decision;
Whereas in its judgment of 18 December 1984 the Court:
1. holds by twelve votes to five that the Kingdom of Sweden is
to pay, for damage, eight hundred thousand Swedish crowns (800 000 SKr)
to the Sporrong estate and two hundred thousand Swedish crowns
(200 000 SKr) to Mrs Lönnroth;
2. holds by thirteen votes to four that the Kingdom of Sweden is
to pay, for costs and expenses, seven hundred and twenty-three
thousand eight hundred and sixty-five Swedish crowns and seventy-five
öre (723 865,75 SKr), less twenty-four thousand one hundred and three
French francs (24 103 FF), to the Sporrong estate and Mrs Lönnroth
jointly;
Having regard to the "Rules concerning the application of Article 54
(art. 54) of the convention";
Having invited the Government of Sweden to inform it of the measures
which had been taken in consequence of the judgments, having regard to
its obligations under Article 53 (art. 53) of the convention to abide
by the judgments;
Whereas, during the examination of this case by the Committee of
Ministers, the Government of Sweden informed the Committee of
Ministers of the measures taken in consequence of the judgments, which
information is summarised at the appendix to this resolution;
Having satisfied itself that the Government of Sweden has awarded the
just satisfaction provided for in the judgment of the Court of
18 December 1984,
Declares, after taking note of the information supplied by the
Government of Sweden, that it has exercised its function under
Article 54 (art. 54) of the convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution DH (85) 17
Information provided by the Government of Sweden
during the examination of the Sporrong and Lönnroth case
before the Committee of Ministers
The expropriation decisions in the two cases were taken in 1956 and
1971, respectively, on the basis of the Expropriation Act of 1917.
This law was, however, replaced by a new Expropriation Act of 1972.
Unlike the 1972 Act, the 1917 Act was silent as to the question
of the length of expropriation permits.
Although the Sporrong and Lönnroth cases were lodged before the
European Commission in 1975, the 1917 Act was still applicable.
The new Act of 1972 has introduced rules as to a time-limit for
expropriation permits. As a result of these rules, cases such as the
ones under examination cannot happen again.
As to the question of building permits, the Swedish Government has
recently presented to Parliament a proposal for a new act on building
and planning. According to this proposal all building bans of the
kind that existed in the Sporrong-Lönnroth case will expire on
1 January 1987, and no new such bans can be issued thereafter.
According to the Swedish Government the proposal will satisfy possible
demands for amendments to the legislation in this field following the
Court's judgment.
The Government of Sweden has also come to the conclusion that the
judgment of 1982 has no other immediate consequences for the Swedish
legislation.
The Government of Sweden has paid to the applicants the sum awarded by
the Court in application of Article 50 (art. 50) of the convention in its
judgment of 18 December 1984 and, in addition, 10% interest on the
afforded satisfaction as from the day of the Court's judgment.