AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 27329/95
by Mats WETTERGREN and Anna-Lena WESSMAN
against Portugal
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 22 October 1997, the following members being present:
Mrs G.H. THUNE, President
MM J.-C. GEUS
G. JÖRUNDSSON
H. DANELIUS
F. MARTINEZ
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
E. BIELIUNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
A. ARABADJIEV
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 6 June 1994 by
Mats WETTERGREN and Anna-Lena WESSMAN against Portugal and registered
on 15 May 1995 under file No. 27329/95 ;
Having regard to :
- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission;
- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on
1 April 1997 and the applicants' observations in reply submitted
on 3 July 1997 ;
Having deliberated,
Decides as follows :
THE FACTS
The applicants are Swedish citizens, born in 1953 and 1959,
respectively, and residing in Stockholm.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be
summarised as follows.
In 1987 the applicants and the Region of Madeira (Região Autónoma
da Madeira), represented by its Regional Government (Governo Regional
da Madeira), reached a cooperation agreement regarding the creation of
a tropical bird garden on this Portuguese island.
By Resolution (Resolução) no. 1607/87 of 1 December 1987 the
Regional Government gave the concession of the area to the applicants
and in October 1988 the bird garden was opened to the public.
However, by Resolution no. 743/91 of 11 July 1991, the Regional
Government revoked Resolution no. 1607/87 and cancelled the agreement.
It was stated that the applicants had not fulfilled some parts of the
agreement, namely payment of the rent and of the agreed percentage on
the entrance fees. Subsequently, the authorities took over the
administration of the bird garden.
On 10 July 1992 the applicants initiated proceedings for damages
against the Regional Government before the Administrative Tribunal
(Tribunal Administrativo de círculo) of Lisbon.
The Regional Government replied on 30 October 1992, maintaining
that the proceedings, according to Portuguese law, should be taken
against the Region of Madeira, the Regional Government being only the
executive organ of the Region.
In their subsequent reply, on 17 November 1992, the applicants
requested that the respondent party be changed to the Region of
Madeira.
The Administrative Tribunal gave its judgment, without a hearing,
on 7 October 1994. It first considered that it was not legally
possible to have the respondent party changed at the particular stage
of proceedings when the applicants had made their request. The
Administrative Tribunal next found, agreeing with the Regional
Government, that the action for damages could only be directed against
the Region of Madeira. The case was thus dismissed without an
examination of the merits.
The applicants appealed against this decision to the Supreme
Administrative Court (Supremo Tribunal Administrativo), where the case
is presently pending.
COMPLAINT
The applicants complain about the length of the proceedings.
They invoke Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 6 June 1994 and was registered
on 15 May 1995.
On 15 January 1997 the Commission decided to communicate the
question concerning the length of the proceedings under Article 6 para.
1 of the Convention to the respondent Government and to ask for written
observations on the admissibility and merits of this question. The
Commission declared inadmissible the remainder of the
applicants' complaints.
The Government's written observations were submitted on
1 April 1997, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for this
purpose. The applicants replied on 3 July 1997.
THE LAW
The applicants' complaint relates to the length of the
proceedings in question. These proceedings began on 10 July 1992 and
are still pending.
According to the applicants, the length of the proceedings - a
period of five years and three months to date - is in breach of the
"reasonable time" requirement laid down in Article 6 para. 1
(Art. 6-1) of the Convention. The Government refute the allegation.
The Commission considers, in the light of the criteria
established by the case-law of the Convention organs on the question
of "reasonable time", and having regard to all the information in its
possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is
required.
For these reasons, unanimously, the Commission
DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case,
the remainder of the application.
M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE
Secretary President
to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy