FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 13224/06
Gunnar MORÉN and others
against Sweden
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11 February 2014 as a Chamber composed of:
Mark Villiger, President,
Angelika Nußberger,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Ann Power-Forde,
Vincent A. De Gaetano,
André Potocki,
Helena Jäderblom, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 March 2006,
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
1. The applicants, Mr Gunnar Morén, Mr Erik Magnusson, Mrs Margareta Flink and Mr Bengt Lönnqvist, are Swedish nationals who were born in 1959, 1925, 1935 and 1949, respectively. They all live in Ludvika and were represented by Ms C. Ludvigsson, a lawyer practising in Borlänge.
2. The Swedish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms H. Kristiansson, of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
A. The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Background and domestic proceedings
4. The mine (Gränsgruvan) was discovered in the county of Dalarna in 1939 by company AJ. In 1941, mining concessions (utmål) were granted for iron and lead ore deposits in the mine as well as in a second mine (Gränsgruvan no. 2) to company AJ. In 1942, the concession area was expanded and, in 1944, mining concessions were granted to company AJ for iron ore deposits at two more mines (Gruvsjöettgruvan and Gruvsjötvågruvan). In 1967, the area was expanded further. In connection with each procedure, certain parts of the properties concerned were bought by company AJ and compensation was paid to the property owners. Certain compensation was also paid to landowners for damage to their forests and land. Extraction of minerals was in progress from 1945 to 1953, and from 1965 to 1972.
5. In 1972 company BM acquired all of the above mining concessions from company AJ, including the properties that company AJ had bought over the years, and undertook mineral extraction from 1973 to 1981. No mineral extraction has taken place since 1981.
6. In December 1998 company BM applied to the Mining Inspectorate of Sweden (Bergsstaten) for an exploitation concession (bearbetnings-koncession) for minerals within the area. The application related to the conversion of the old permits, granted in 1941 and 1944, into one new exploitation concession in accordance with transitional provisions to the new Minerals Act (Minerallagen, 1991:45). In its application, company BM noted, inter alia, that the remaining minerals in the area had been examined mainly to determine whether it would be possible to exploit the minerals with profit since the ore in question had proved difficult to refine with conventional techniques. The calculations had shown good potential and studies were continuing to investigate whether saleable concentrates could be obtained and whether the circulation of processed products could work on a continuous scale.
7. As the applicants’ land was within the defined area, they were informed about the application and given the opportunity to comment. In their submission, they stressed the impact on nature and, in particular, the negative effects that mining could have on nearby water sources which, they considered, should be examined further.
8. On 28 November 2000 the Mining Inspectorate granted company BM an exploitation concession, valid for 25 years. The concession conferred upon the company the right to extract and exploit copper, gold, silver, zinc and lead according to the rules of the Minerals Act within the defined area. Moreover, it was linked to a number of conditions, inter alia, relating to securing the area during exploitation and restoring the area and its nature afterwards. In reaching the decision, the Mining Inspectorate observed that the County Administrative Board (Länsstyrelsen) of the County of Dalarna did not object to the concession being granted and that extensive exploration and development work was already on-going in accordance with the old permits. It further found that no other obstacles existed to granting the concession.
9. In its decision, the Mining Inspectorate further noted that any rights to landowner shares (jordägarandelar) or landowner rent (jordägaravgälder), from which the property owners might have benefited according to the old legislation for the permits, would cease pursuant to the transitional rules of the Minerals Act. However, it also observed that the decision did not affect any agreements that might exist between the concession holder and the landowner.
10. The applicants appealed against the decision to the Government, reiterating their concerns about the negative effects that mining would have on the surrounding nature and water sources. They further strongly objected to the fact that they would not receive any compensation for the minerals that would be extracted from their land. They considered this to be in violation of the Swedish Constitution as well as of the Convention.
11. On 11 September 2003 the Government rejected the appeal as it considered that no grounds had been presented to alter the Mining Inspectorate’s decision. Among other authorities, the Geological Survey of Sweden (Sveriges Geologiska Undersökning) submitted its comments on the appeal to the Government and noted, inter alia, that the decision to grant the exploitation concession had been essentially an administrative measure to convert the old permits to the single new concession but that it did not alter the use of the land within the defined area or any interests.
12. As the applicants were not satisfied with the Government’s decision, they applied to the Supreme Administrative Court (Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen) for judicial review according to the Act on Judicial Review of Certain Administrative Decisions (Lagen om rättsprövning av vissa förvaltningsbeslut, 1988:205). They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and claimed that they had been deprived of their property rights since company BM would be able to extract minerals from their land without compensating them. This was also contrary to the custom which had existed in Dalarna since time immemorial. It had been abolished for political reasons through the Mining Act of 1974 (Gruvlagen, 1974:342) but Sweden was obliged to comply with the Convention.
13. On 6 October 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the Government’s decision in full. It noted that Swedish law allows for various measures to control the use of an individual’s land. Thus, the Minerals Act, as in force at the time of the Mining Inspectorate’s decision, allowed the Mining Inspectorate to grant physical and legal persons the right to explore and extract certain minerals enumerated in the Act even though they did not own the land where the minerals were located. The landowner had the right to receive compensation for any damage or encroachment suffered due to these activities but not for the value of minerals extracted by someone else. The court further observed that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention was not absolute but allowed for certain restrictions. Hence a State could enact such legislation as it considered necessary to regulate the use of property in accordance with the public interest. In these circumstances, the Government’s decision had not been in violation of the Convention or otherwise flawed.
2. Ownership of properties within the concession area
14. Following communication of the application, the Government submitted extracts from the Swedish Real Property Register and informed the Court of the following ownership constellations of the properties affected by the concession and relevant to the present case:
15. Half of the property Ludvika Persbo 56:7 had been bought by the first applicant, Mr Morén, in November 1991 and the second half in December 1991. Thus, since December 1991 the first applicant has been the sole owner of this property.
16. The property Ludvika Persbo 7:14 had been inherited by the second applicant, Mr Magnusson, in November 1968. Thus, since this time, he has been the sole owner of the property.
17. The property Ludvika Persbo 12:13 had been inherited by the third applicant, Mrs Flink, in August 1998. However, in November 2004, she had given it as a gift to Mr L. Flink who, since then, has been the sole owner of the property.
18. The property Ludvika Persbo 25:1 had been inherited by the fourth applicant, Mr Lönnqvist, in November 2000. However, on 23 April 2012 he sold the property to Mr L. Flink who, since this date, has been the sole owner of the property.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
1. Swedish Mining Legislation through history
19. The first regulations in public law in Sweden concerning mineral exploration and related matters date back to the 14th century. During the 16th century, various royal decrees and statutes were in force with the effect that mines belonged to the Crown. In 1723, a royal statute entered into force establishing the mining claim system which meant that a person who discovered a deposit could be given the exclusive right to extract the deposit if certain formalities had been observed. Landowners were given a landowner share (jordägarandel), namely a 50% share in the mineral extraction. The thinking behind it appears to have been to stop the landowner from preventing prospecting or keeping mineral deposits secret. The meaning of a landowner share was a right to participate in the extraction of the minerals corresponding to one’s share, that is, financial participation was necessary in order to collect income from the share. In 1855 and 1884 new mining statutes were issued through which the state regulated mining in more detail.
20. It was with the enactment of the Mining Act of 1938 (Gruvlagen, 1938:314, hereafter the “1938 Mining Act”) that an essentially comprehensive regulation entered into force. Mining concessions granted under the 1938 Mining Act or under earlier provisions applied indefinitely. The landowner share was removed and replaced by a corresponding share of the Crown. The landowner was instead awarded a landowner rent (jordägaravgäld). The principle of this was that the landowner would receive each year from the owner of the mine an amount equal to 1% of the value of the mineral extracted, but a maximum of SEK 5,000 (later raised to SEK 10,000). The landowner share was to be paid during the first twenty years that the mining operations were in progress. Thus, according to the preparatory works to the Mining Act of 1974 (Government Bill 1974:32, p. 129), the landowner rent was created as compensation to the property owner for the loss of the landowner share.
21. The 1938 Mining Act ceased to apply on 1 July 1974 when the Mining Act of 1974 (Gruvlagen, 1974:342, hereafter the “1974 Mining Act”) entered into force. This Act was also based on the mining claims system, but it had more concessional elements than previous acts. The 1974 Mining Act abolished the landowner rent. However, in the transitional provisions to the 1974 Mining Act, the landowner rent for mining concessions granted under the 1938 Mining Act was retained. Still, under Chapter 14, section 7, paragraph 5, of the transitional provisions to the 1974 Mining Act, all mining concessions granted before the entry into force of that Act would cease to apply on 31 December 1999. The rules on landowner rent would also cease to apply on this date.
2. The Minerals Act
22. On 24 January 1991 the Minerals Act (Minerallagen, 1991:451) was promulgated and, on 1 July 1992, it entered into force, replacing the 1974 Mining Act. The Minerals Act is still in force. It is essentially based on the concession system which means that the State, following a discretionary examination, grants individuals the right to prospect for and exploit mineral deposits. Through the Act, the mining claims were replaced by exploration permits (undersökningstillstånd), Chapter 2 of the Minerals Act, and mining concessions were replaced by exploitation concessions (bearbetningskoncessioner), Chapter 4 of the Minerals Act. According to section 7 of that chapter, exploitation concessions are granted for a period of 25 years.
23. According to Chapter 5, section 2, of the Minerals Act, the owner of a real property may exploit deposits of concession minerals for his own domestic use without a concession, provided that no other person holds a concession within the area.
24. Chapter 7 of the Mineral Act contains rules for when compensation may be granted to affected parties. Thus, section 1 provides that damage or encroachment resulting from exploration work shall be compensated by the holder of the exploration permit or concession. Section 2 states that for damage resulting from the granting of an exploitation concession, compensation shall be paid by the concession holder. In the event of exceptional detriment to any property or part thereof by reason of an exploitation concession having been granted, the concession holder shall purchase the property or part of the property suffering such detriment if the owner so requests. Section 3 provides the same obligations for the concession holder, and rights for the property owner, as section 2, in case of damage or encroachment resulting from land or other space being utilised for exploitation or activities connected thereto.
25. When the Minerals Act was enacted it contained no right for landowners to receive any compensation for minerals extracted on their properties. However, on 1 May 2005, a new provision, section 7, was introduced in Chapter 7 of the Minerals Act (through Act 2005:161). According to this provision, for each year that exploitation is undertaken, the concession holder shall pay mineral compensation equal to two‑thousandths of the calculated value of the minerals covered by the concession that are extracted and brought to the surface within the concession area during the year. Three quarters of the compensation shall be paid to the landowners within the concession area and one-quarter to the State. If there is more than one property within the area, the compensation payable to the landowners shall be determined according to each property’s share of the area. This provision does not have retroactive effect and thus does not apply to exploitation concessions granted prior to 1 May 2005.
26. In the preparatory works to this amendment to the Minerals Act (Government Bill 2004/05:40), the Government noted that the landowner rent had been abolished through the 1974 Mining Act because the Government at the time had considered that there were no reasonable grounds for a landowner, without contributing personally, to receive compensation from the concession holder for minerals extracted (ibid., p. 61 [with reference to Government Bill 1974:32, p. 130]). However, the Government observed that, during recent years, opposition against planned mining activities had become evident and it had led to the mineral legislation as a whole being considered unfair and outdated (ibid., p. 60). Thus, the Government considered that there was a strong general interest to create a Minerals Act which would provide a good framework for entrepreneurial initiatives and investments. It also had to be adapted to global changes and assure a balance between the interests of the landowners and the mining companies (ibid., p. 61). In this respect, the Government noted that the issue of ownership of discovered minerals was unclear in Sweden. They observed that the boundaries of a property in depth and height were contentious and that there was neither any existing legislation nor any preparatory works or literature to clarify the matter. Since the question was complicated and concerned fundamental property legislation, the Government found that there were not enough reasons, in the instant case, to take a stance on the matter (ibid., pp. 60-61). They then noted that landowners’ rights were in various ways limited and controlled by authorities and by others’ rights and that, for a long time, this had been the situation for landowners in relation to concession minerals. However, since landowners previously had received some sort of compensation, and a reintroduction of compensation could contribute to a wider acceptance of the mining industry in Sweden, the Government found that when making an overall assessment, there were now predominant reasons to re-introduce a special system for compensation for minerals extracted (ibid., pp. 62-63).
COMPLAINT
27. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that they had been deprived of their property rights when the Swedish authorities had granted company BM an exploitation concession to extract minerals from their properties without affording them any compensation for the minerals.
THE LAW
28. The applicants complained that their property rights had been violated since they would receive no compensation for minerals extracted from their properties. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention which provides:
“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 submissions before the Court
1. The Government
(a) Victim status
29. The Government submitted that the third and fourth applicants could not be regarded as having victim status before the Court. They noted that the third applicant had given her property to Mr L. Flink in 2004, before the present application had been lodged with the Court, and that the fourth applicant had sold his property to Mr L. Flink in April 2012. Thus, neither of them owned any land within the concession area any longer and the question of future compensation for mineral extraction, if it were to take place, was not relevant to them.
(b) Other grounds for inadmissibility
30. The Government noted that the first applicant, Mr Morén, had purchased his property on 15 November 1991, long after the landowner rent had been abolished through the 1974 Mining Act. Thus, he could never have had any expectation to receive landowner rent for future extraction of minerals on his land. His part of the application should therefore be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.
31. In any event, the Government observed that the applicants had not claimed that their possibility to use their land fully had been affected or that their property rights had been limited in any way, except for the fact that they considered that they had a right to compensation for minerals extracted. In this respect, the Government noted that landowner rent had been discontinued as a result of the transitional provisions in the 1974 Mining Act, not as a result of the proceedings in the present case. Moreover, they argued that, although mineral deposits had an economic value and, as such, constituted possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the mineral deposits in question in the present case were not the property of the applicants since these minerals were situated in the bedrock below these properties and thus were the property of the State. It was true that from time to time, some monetary award had been offered to landowners on whose land extraction of minerals had taken place, but it had not been offered on the assumption that the landowners had a right of ownership of the minerals on their land. Instead, according to the Government, the main reason for such payment had been to encourage individuals to prospect for and extract mineral deposits and to stop landowners from preventing such prospecting by others and from keeping mineral deposits secret.
32. In view of the above, the Government submitted that the application should be declared inadmissible as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and its Protocols.
33. However, the Government claimed that, if the Court were to find that the exploitation concession constituted an interference with applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, this interference must be regarded as necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It was in accordance with domestic law and clearly pursued a legitimate aim in the general interest.
34. In this respect, the Government stressed that Sweden had had an active mining industry for hundreds of years and that much of the country’s wealth was based on export earnings from mining. Moreover, the mineral sector was crucial to employment in certain regions of Sweden and vital to the development of the mining equipment industry. The concession minerals regulated in the Minerals Act were also, as commodities for the production of metals and mineral, of decisive importance for the material welfare of modern society. Consequently, there was a very strong public interest that minerals be prospected and extracted.
35. In connection to this, the Government further noted that the minerals in question in the present case were rare and required such special expertise and so much capital that, apart from the odd exception, landowners were unlikely to have the capacity to undertake the necessary operations. As a consequence, any potential mineral deposits within the concession area had to be considered to be of no economic value to the applicants.
36. Lastly, the Government reiterated that the exploitation concessions had not caused any restrictions on the applicants’ ability to use, sell or rent their properties. Moreover, it remained unclear whether extraction of the mineral deposits would at all take place in the future. Thus, any question of compensation for minerals extracted was prematurely raised. In these circumstances, the Government considered that the granting of the exploitation concession on the applicants’ land had been proportionate to the general interests pursued and, accordingly, the application should be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.
2. The applicants
(a) Victim status
37. The applicants admitted that the third and fourth applicants were no longer the owners of any land within the concession area. However, the applicants’ representative stated that Mr L. Flink had declared that he was willing to pursue the present application in place of the third and fourth applicants since he was the current owner of the properties affected by the exploitation concession.
(b) Other grounds for inadmissibility
38. The applicants maintained that they were the owners of the minerals on their land and that, by refusing to grant them compensation for minerals extracted, the State violated their property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
39. In their view, historically, there had been various legal restrictions on the property owners’ use of their land, including minerals, but not on their ownership of the land. This was reflected in the existence of compensation for landowners for extracting minerals from their properties first through landowner shares, later landowner rent and, since 2005, mineral compensation. They further noted that landowners had the right, to a certain extent, to extract minerals for their own personal needs.
40. While the applicants acknowledged that the payment of landowner rent was discontinued due to the 1974 Mining Act, they stressed that it was only through the impugned decisions that they had had the opportunity to object to this measure, which they had done. In their view, the minerals on their land belonged to them and they had a legitimate expectation to be compensated if any extraction took place. By refusing to pay compensation for minerals extracted, the interference would be disproportionate and fail to strike a fair balance between the public and private interests at stake. In this regard, they did not question the importance of the mining industry in Sweden but considered that it was not an issue in the present case. The matter concerned the applicants’ legitimate expectation to be compensated when they were deprived of their possessions.
41. The applicants further claimed that it was irrelevant when they had bought their properties since the relevant provisions in the Swedish mining legislation and the impugned decision to refuse compensation were in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and, consequently, any extraction of minerals from their properties without paying compensation would deprive them of their property rights.
B. The Court’s assessment
1. Victim status
42. The Court notes that the extracts from the Swedish Real Property Register confirm the Government’s submission that the third and fourth applicants are no longer the owners of two of the properties within the concession area. Indeed, this is also acknowledged by the applicants and the third and fourth applicants have not argued that they want to pursue their parts of the application before the Court.
43. Thus, since the third applicant gave her land to Mr L. Flink in November 2004, more than one year before the present application was lodged with the Court and while the domestic proceedings were still pending, the Court finds that she cannot be considered to have victim status under the Convention. It follows that her part of the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.
44. As for the fourth applicant, the Court considers that he can no longer claim to be a victim since he has sold his land and thereby will not be affected if minerals are extracted in the future within the concession area without compensation being paid. In this regard, the Court notes that no minerals were extracted while the fourth applicant was the owner of the land. Consequently, the fourth applicant does not fulfil the requirements of Article 34 of the Convention and his part of the application must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
45. In so far as the applicants’ representative has stated that Mr L. Flink is willing to pursue the third and fourth applicants’ parts of the application, the Court observes that he has neither submitted an application form formally to request inclusion as an applicant in the case, nor has he submitted a power of attorney for the representative or otherwise confirmed her status as his representative. In these circumstances, the Court will not examine this request further as the formal requirements for lodging an application, in accordance with Article 34 of the Convention and Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, have not been fulfilled.
2. Other grounds for inadmissibility
46. As concerns the Government’s contention that the application is premature since no extraction of minerals has yet taken place, the Court observes that since company BM’s exploitation concession for the area is currently in force, the company may commence extraction at any time. Moreover, the question of compensation for minerals that may be extracted during the duration of the exploitation concession was dealt with in the domestic proceedings at issue in the present case. The Supreme Administrative Court even discussed whether the lack of compensation was compatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and, through its judgment, finally settled the issue of compensation on domestic level in Sweden. Thus, in the Court’s view, the application cannot be considered as premature simply because extraction of minerals has not yet commenced.
47. Turning to the Government’s submission that the application should be declared inadmissible ratione materiae, the Court notes that the parties have each argued extensively in their observations for their viewpoint on who is the legitimate owner of the minerals on the applicants’ land. The Court observes however that it is not entirely clear under Swedish legislation who – if indeed anyone – is the actual owner of the non-extracted minerals enumerated in the Minerals Act. Other minerals are considered to belong to the landowner, but the minerals enumerated in the Act clearly hold a special status. As stressed by the Government, and agreed upon by the applicants, the mining industry in Sweden has been of great importance to the economic well-being of the country for centuries and continues to be so. Thus, due to their value and importance for the country, the extraction of these minerals has merited specific regulation.
48. In relation to the first applicant, Mr Morén, the Court notes that he bought his property at the end of 1991, long after compensation in the form of landowner rent had been abolished through the 1974 Mining Act and, moreover, after the Minerals Act had been promulgated. Thus, at the time when he became the owner of the property, he knew, or should have been aware of, the legislation in force and that he would not be eligible for any compensation for minerals extracted on his property after 1999.
49. As concerns the second applicant, Mr Magnusson, the Court observes that he has owned his property since 1968 and thus held a right to landowner rent according to the old rules in the 1938 Mining Act. However, he has not informed the Court, and it does not appear from the case-file, whether he ever received any landowner rent while mining was carried out between 1965 and 1981.
50. In this respect, the Court notes that the landowner rent was abolished through the 1974 Mining Act but that, according to the transitional provisions of the Act, the rent was retained for the duration of the mining concessions granted before the entry into force of that Act. However, since these concessions would cease to apply at the latest on 31 December 1999, so would the landowner rent. For the second applicant, this meant that he could have continued to receive landowner rent, if mining had continued, until the end of 1999 when company BM’s mining concessions expired and it applied for an exploitation concession. Thus, the Court notes that the transitional provisions allowed for a substantial amount of time to pass, in the second applicant’s case 25 years, before the landowner rent was completely abolished.
51. Regardless of whether or not the question of ownership to minerals has been settled on domestic level, the Court observes that it is clear that Swedish landowners since long have been deprived of the right to dispose of certain minerals extracted from their land and thereby not been able to effectively exercise any property rights over those minerals. Thus, the Court finds that the first and second applicants have not established that they have a right in national law amounting to a possession of the minerals within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, §§ 82-83, ECHR 2001‑VIII). Consequently the Court’s assessment of the applicants’ Convention rights as regards claims for compensation for minerals extracted from their properties cannot be based on ownership of the minerals. However, this finding does not mean that the application can be declared inadmissible ratione materiae. The Court reiterates that the concept of “possessions” referred to in the first part of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has an autonomous meaning which is not limited to the ownership of physical goods and is independent from the formal classification in domestic law: certain other rights and interests constituting assets can also be regarded as “property rights”, and thus as “possessions” for the purposes of this provision. In each case, the issue that needs to be examined is whether the circumstances of the case, considered as a whole, conferred on the applicant title to a substantive interest protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 62, ECHR 2010).
52. It remains for the Court to determine whether the claims for compensation can be based on any other ground in accordance with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Apart from existing possessions, the protection afforded extends to assets, including claims, in respect of which applicants can argue that they have at least a “legitimate expectation” of obtaining effective enjoyment of a property right (see Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein, cited above, § 83). In this regard, the Court observes that throughout Swedish history remuneration paid to landowners appears to have been motivated mainly by the interest to give them an incentive to support mineral exploitation and not to obstruct it.
53. Against this background, and even if it were accepted that the second applicant held a right to landowner rent when he acquired the property and at that time had a legitimate expectation to receive some compensation for minerals extracted, the Court finds that his expectation to continue to receive such compensation cannot be considered legitimate at the time it was finally phased out in 1999. It follows that the first applicant, who knew already at the acquisition of his land that he was not eligible for any landowner rent, can never have had any legitimate expectation to obtain such remuneration.
54. The Court notes further that the first and second applicants have not claimed that their land has been negatively affected by the granting of the exploitation concession or that possible future extraction of minerals would have a negative impact on their land. In this respect, the Court underlines that, if extraction commences and causes some sort of damage or intrusion to the property, the first and second applicants are entitled to compensation in accordance with the specific rules in the Minerals Act.
55. In these circumstances, and reiterating that the economic and technical structure of a minerals policy of a state such as Sweden where the mining industry historically and present plays an important role must be entrusted to that state with some discretion, the Court finds that the Swedish legislation in force at the time of the domestic proceedings, and enforced by the national authorities in the present case, falls within the state’s margin of appreciation and struck a fair balance between the public and private interests at stake. The fact that Sweden in 2005 decided to amend the Minerals Act and include a provision on mineral compensation to land owners does not alter the Court’s conclusion in the present case.
56. It follows that the first and second applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that they would not be compensated if company BM started to extract minerals on their land, while the current exploitation concession is in force, is manifestly ill-founded and must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Claudia WesterdiekMark Villiger
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy