AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 22317/93
by J.A., H.E. and L.W.
against Sweden
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 17 May 1995, the following members being present:
Mrs. G.H. THUNE, Acting President
MM. H. DANELIUS
G. JÖRUNDSSON
S. TRECHSEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
F. MARTINEZ
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
Ms. M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the 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 15 March 1993 by
J.A., H.E. and L.W. against Sweden and registered on 23 July 1993 under
file No. 22317/93;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, A, B and C, Swedish citizens residing at Västra
Frölunda, were born in 1916, 1921 and 1946 respectively. Before the
Commission they are represented by their lawyer, Ms. Margareta
Andersson, Gothenburg.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be
summarised as follows.
The applicants own four properties on the island of Vessingsö in
the municipality of Gothenburg. In 1989-1990, the owners of another
property on the island built a landing-stage in the adjoining waters.
Neither this other property nor the waters border on the applicants'
properties.
Under the Water Act (Vattenlagen, 1983:291), a permission is
required for the construction of a landing-stage. As the builders had
not applied for a permission before commencing the construction work,
they applied to the Water Court (Vattendomstolen) of Vänersborg for a
declaration under Chapter 4, Section 5 of the Act that the landing-
stage was legal (lagligförklaring).
By judgment of 20 October 1990, the Water Court issued the
requested declaration. Prior to the judgment the Court heard different
property owners, including the applicants B and C who, inter alia,
requested an investigation of the title to the waters in which the
landing-stage had been constructed and claimed that the landing-stage
obstructed the thoroughfare to their berths and that the construction
work had damaged the sea bed and made the water muddy. The Court found
that the municipality of Gothenburg was the registered owner of the
waters in question and that the previous owner of the waters, by a 1934
agreement, had allowed the construction of a landing-stage. Before the
Court, the municipality confirmed that the right conferred by the
agreement applied also to the present owners of the property to which
the landing-stage was connected. The Court further found that the
landing-stage's impact on the navigability was very marginal and that
the construction work had not caused any damage for the two applicants.
All three applicants, dissatisfied with the Water Court's
declaration, lodged an appeal with the Water Court of Appeal
(Vattenöverdomstolen), claiming that the waters around the island were
jointly owned by the properties on the island and that the construction
of the landing-stage had encroached upon their rights.
The Water Court of Appeal investigated the title to the waters
in question and found that in 1909 the waters around the island had
been divided into separate properties and, thus, had not been jointly
owned by the land owners on the island. These water properties were now
owned by the municipality of Gothenburg. As the applicants had no
rights to the waters and as the landing-stage did not encroach upon any
essential interest of their properties, the Court concluded that the
applicants had no standing in the case (talerätt). By decision of
23 June 1992, the Court, therefore, dismissed the case.
On 25 September 1992 the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) refused
the applicants leave to appeal.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complain, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention, that their rights as part-owners of the waters in question
have been violated, as the courts did not sufficiently investigate the
title to the waters.
2. The applicants further complain that their rights under Article 6
of the Convention have been violated as their appeal was dismissed
because of lack of standing.
THE LAW
1. The applicants complain that their rights as part-owners of the
waters in question have been violated, as the courts did not
sufficiently investigate the title to the waters. They invoke Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention, which provides the
following:
"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 Commission recalls that the Water Court and the Water Court
of Appeal, after having investigated the matter, concluded that the
municipality of Gothenburg had the title to the waters in question and
that, thus, the applicants were not part-owners of the waters. The
Commission finds that the applicants' submissions do not give cause to
call into question this conclusion. Thus, the applicants have not
established that they have any rights to the waters. The Commission
further finds that the applicants have not shown that the construction
of the landing-stage has encroached upon the use of their properties.
The Commission therefore concludes that the applicants have
failed to establish an interference with their property rights.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
2. The applicants further complain that their rights under Article 6
(Art. 6) of the Convention have been violated as their appeal was
dismissed because of lack of standing. Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)
reads, in relevant parts, as follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations
..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing ... by [a] ...
tribunal ..."
The applicants maintain that in the Water Court of Appeal's
decision to dismiss the case and the Supreme Court's later refusal of
leave to appeal the question of ownership to the waters in question was
not determined.
The Commission recalls that the court proceedings in the present
case concerned the legality of the landing-stage under the Water Act.
Even assuming that these proceedings involved a determination of the
applicants' civil rights and that thus Article 6 (Art. 6) is applicable
to the present complaint, both the Water Court and the Water Court of
Appeal investigated the applicants' claim that they were part-owners
of the waters but found that they had no rights to them. Both courts
further examined the possible encroachment of the landing-stage upon
the applicants' rights.
The Commission therefore concludes that the facts submitted do
not disclose any appearance of a violation of the applicants' rights
under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to Acting President of
the Second Chamber the Second Chamber
(M.-T. SCHOEPFER) (G.H. THUNE)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy