The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of
the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the convention"),
Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of
Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the convention
relating to the application lodged on 11 May 1983 by Mr Väinö Uskela
against Sweden (Application No. 10537/83);
Whereas on 1 September 1987 the Commission transmitted the said report
to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months
provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the convention
elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court
of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the convention;
Whereas in his application the applicant complained inter alia that he
had no possibility of having a dispute relating to the issuing of an
expropriation permit affecting property owned by him examined by a
tribunal satisfying the requirements of Article 6, paragraph 1
(art. 6-1), of the convention, and that the continuation of the
expropriation procedure after he had restored the property was
contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the convention;
Whereas the Commission declared the application admissible on
10 October 1985 as regards the above-mentioned complaints and in its
report adopted on 16 July 1987 expressed the opinion:
- unanimously, that there had been a violation of
Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the convention;
- by seventeen votes to one, that there had been no violation of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1);
Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance
with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the convention;
Whereas, during the examination of the case, the Committee of
Ministers was informed by the Government of Sweden that, under the
terms of the Act of 21 April 1988 on judicial review of certain
administrative decisions, administrative decisions relating to the
application of legal provisions referred to in Chapter 8, sections 2
and 3, of the Instrument of Government would henceforth, at the
request of a private subject party to the proceedings, be reviewed by
the Supreme Administrative Court, that the said Court would examine
whether a decision was contrary to any legal rule, and that the Act
applied inter alia to decisions on the issuing of expropriation
permits;
Having examined the proposals made by the Commission concerning just
satisfaction for the applicant,
Decides, having voted in accordance with the provisions of
Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the convention:
a. that there has been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1
(art. 6-1), of the convention in this case;
b. that there has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(P1-1) to the convention in this case;
Takes note of the information provided by the Government of Sweden;
Recommends, under Rule 5 of the Rules adopted by the Committee of
Ministers for the application of Article 32 (art. 32) of the
convention, that the Government of Sweden pay to the applicant
20 000 Swedish crowns in respect of non-pecuniary damage and
60 000 Swedish crowns in respect of costs;
Decides, therefore, that no further action is called for in this case.