CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 9 mai 1986

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 9 May 1986, the following members being present:                        MM.   C. A. NØRGAARD, President                           G. SPERDUTI                           F. ERMACORA                           G. JÖRUNDSSON                           G. TENEKIDES                           S. TRECHSEL                           B. KIERNAN                           A. WEITZEL                           J. C. SOYER                           H. G. SCHERMERS                           H. DANELIUS                           G. BATLINER                           H. VANDENBERGHE                       Mrs G. H. THUNE                       Sir Basil HALL                         Mr. H. C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission   Having regard to Art. 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (art. 25);   Having regard to the application introduced on 8 March 1985 by U.L. against Sweden and registered on 11 July 1985 under file No. 11628/85;   Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;   Having deliberated;   Decides as follows:   THE FACTS   The facts of the case, as they appear from the applicant's submissions, may be summarised as follows:   The applicant is a Swedish citizen born in 1968 and resident at Umeå. He is a business man by profession.   The applicant has been collecting gambling machines since 1982. Gambling machines which pay out money may, with some exceptions, only be possessed by a person who has obtained authorisation to possess such a machine.   The rules of possession of gambling machines are laid down in the Lottery Act (lotterilagen).   In September 1983 the applicant obtained the authorisation of the Government to possess a gambling machine ("enarmad bandit").   In April 1984 he obtained a further authorisation to possess a second gambling machine ("Pajazzoautomat").   Subsequently, the applicant applied for authorisation to possess three further gambling machines which he intended to acquire. The request was rejected by the Lottery Council (lotterinämnden) on 14 September 1984.   The applicant appealed to the Government, which on 22 November 1984 rejected the appeal.   On the same day, the Government decided in a separate decision to take no further measures in respect of a request from the applicant that the Lottery Act be changed or clarified.   The applicant has thereafter requested the Government to reconsider their decision of 22 November 1984.   This request was rejected on 31 January 1985.   COMPLAINTS   The applicant complains about the fact that he has not been authorised to acquire three further gambling machines.   He submits that this is a violation of Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) on the ground, inter alia, that it cannot be a "public interest" to prevent individuals from possessing gambling machines.   THE LAW   The applicant has alleged a violation of Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) due to the fact that he has been denied authorisation to possess three gambling machines.   Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) reads as follows:   "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."   In substance Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) guarantees the right of property (Eur. Court H.R., Marckx judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, para. 63).   It is plain from the text of Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) that it aims at securing the peaceful enjoyment of existing possessions.   In its judgment in the case of Van der Mussele, the Court stated that Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) "applies only to existing possessions" (Eur. Court H.R., Van der Mussele judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, para. 48). However, in the Commission's opinion Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) does not guarantee any right to acquire property.   In the present case, the applicant asked for but was refused authorisation to possess three gambling machines.   It is observed that the applicant had not at that time acquired the gambling machines to which his request for authorisation related.   The Commission considers therefore that the present application only concerns the right to acquire property, a right which is not covered by Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), and there is nothing to suggest that the applicant's right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions has in any way been affected by the refused authorisation.   Accordingly, the applicant's complaint falls outside the scope of Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) and the application is therefore incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Art. 27, para. 2 (art. 27-2).   For these reasons, the Commission   DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE   Secretary to the Commission                 President of the Commission   (H. C. KRÜGER)                              (C. A. NØRGAARD)