CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 16 octobre 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 16 October 1986, the following members being present:                         MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President                           J. A. FROWEIN                           E. BUSUTTIL                           G. JÖRUNDSSON                           G. TENEKIDES                           S. TRECHSEL                           B. KIERNAN                           A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                           A. WEITZEL                           J. C. SOYER                           H. G. SCHERMERS                           H. DANELIUS                           G. BATLINER                           H. VANDENBERGHE                       Mrs G. H. THUNE                       Sir Basil HALL                       Mr. F. MARTINEZ                         Mr. H. C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission   Having regard to Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;   Having regard to the application introduced on 13 March 1983 by M. P. against Sweden and registered on 10 December 1984 under file No. 11306/84;   Having regard to:   -        the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;   -        the Commission's decision of 8 October 1986 to give notice of the application to the Government and to invite them to present written observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaints concerning the length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy;   -        the Government's observations dated 5 February 1986;   -        the applicant's observations dated 19 April 1986;   -        the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure;   Having deliberated;   Decides as follows:   THE FACTS   The facts of the case, as they appear from the parties' submissions, may be summarised as follows:   The applicant is a Swedish citizen born in 1898.   She was formerly a forester but is now retired and resides at Ramsele, Sweden. In the proceedings before the Commission she is represented by her son Mr. Lennart Persson.   He is a road engineer (vägmästare) by profession and resides at Märsta, Sweden.   The applicant is the former owner of the forestry estate at which she now resides and which is situated at the river Fjällsjöälven.   The applicant's two sons are now owners of the estate. The estate has an area of 13 hectares.   In 1939, the Royal Water Power Board (Kungliga Vattenfallsstyrelsen, subsequently replaced by the present National Water Power Board, Statens Vattenfallsverk), which was planning to construct a water power station in the area where the applicant lives, concluded an easement contract (servitut) with the applicant to the effect that the Board had the right to use the river water which formed a part of the applicant's estate.   The applicant received 360 Swedish Crowns in compensation for this.   Subsequently the applicant has received compensation in the amount of 2000 Swedish Crowns for the effects of the draining of the river.   In case damage was caused to the applicant's property as a result of actions by the Royal Water Power Board, it was stated that the applicant should be afforded compensation at an amount which could either be agreed between the parties or decided by the Water Court (Vattendomstolen).   In a partial judgment of 30 June 1949 the Water Court of Östersund granted the Royal Water Power Board a building permit for the construction of a water power station between the two rivers Ångermanälven and Fjällsjöälven.   By judgment of 28 February 1950 the Water Court ordered that the Royal Water Power Board should prepare storage areas (avläggsplatser) for the timber during the construction of the power station.   The power station (Kilforsens kraftverk), which was put into operation in 1953, had as a result that a distance of 20 kilometres of Fjällsjöälven was drained.   The applicant's property was situated in this area.   This caused a number of foresters in the area, including the applicant, some inconveniences, consisting mainly of increased expenses for the operation of the timber business.   The applicant was entitled to compensation under the 1918 Water Act (vattenlagen) as well as the subsequent 1953 Water Act and this compensation was to be decided by the Water Court.   By a partial judgment of 10 April 1953, the Water Court granted the Royal Water Power Board permission to take the power station into operation.   The Court also ruled on compensation claims related to the project.   Moreover, the Court decided, for a probationary period of 10 years, to adjourn the final examination of the effects of the power station on the timber business in the area. The Court appointed an expert to investigate the matter further and issued certain regulations which were to apply during the probationary period.   In a judgment of 9 September 1953, the Water Court dealt with, inter alia, the effect on fishing in the area.   Compensation for losses was awarded to the applicant.   On 30 December 1958 the Court awarded the applicant compensation for the deterioration of washing and bathing facilities etc.   In a judgment of 1 March 1965 the Water Court decided to adjourn further the issue relating to the timber business until the effects of the power station on the timber business had been appropriately investigated.   The Court also issued similar provisional regulations as in the judgment of 10 April 1953.   On 28 April 1965, the Water Court awarded compensation to the applicant for detrimental effects on boat traffic and washing.   During the period until August 1970 a number of the affected foresters and the Royal Water Power Board agreed on the terms of compensation for the increased costs for the timber business.   The Water Court confirmed these settlements between the parties in a judgment of 21 August 1970.   In October 1970, the National Water Power Board offered the applicant, through her lawyer, a sum of 1,930 Swedish Crowns as compensation for the increased costs for her timber business.   On 18 October 1971 the National Water Power Board submitted to the Water Court a proposal for a final settlement of the remaining issues concerning the effects of the power station on the timber business at the drained part of the river.   A preliminary hearing was held before the Water Court on 14 April 1972.   Subsequently a comprehensive exchange of correspondence between the parties took place.   At the request of the Water Court, the National Water Power Board on 12 January 1973 submitted inter alia a memorandum containing two alternative methods of calculating the compensation.   A further preliminary hearing before the Water Court took place on 14 February 1974.   In the spring of 1974, the applicant through her lawyer was offered 6,947 Swedish Crowns as compensation by the National Water Power Board.   However, in July 1974 the Board informed the applicant's lawyer that they were now offering a sum of only 1,780 Swedish Crowns.   In March 1975 the expert who had been appointed by the Water Court on 10 April 1953 died.   The Water Court decided after having heard the parties that there was no need to appoint a new expert.   On 30 December 1976 the National Water Power Board submitted a final proposal for the settlement of the outstanding compensation issues. The applicant submitted observations on this proposal in a letter of 8 August 1977.   On 12 August 1977 the National Water Power Board submitted for confirmation certain contracts which had been concluded with some foresters, and requested that the Water Court should terminate the probationary period and, taking the submitted contracts into account, finally settle the matter adjourned from 1953.   On 23 and 24 August 1977 the Water Court held the main hearing and in that context it visited the area concerned.   In these proceedings, the applicant claimed a lump sum of 20,000 Swedish Crowns as compensation, a larger storage space for the timber and an improved transport road from the storage space.   In a final judgment of 8 March 1978, the Water Court confirmed the various contracts and awarded the sum of 8,909 Swedish Crowns to the applicant as compensation.   The remaining claims by the applicant were rejected.   The applicant and some other foresters appealed to the Water Court of Appeal (vattenöverdomstolen).   In a judgment of 26 May 1981 the Water Court of Appeal confirmed the judgment in all but one part: the issue regarding the applicant's request for a larger storage space was referred back to the Water Court for reconsideration.   The applicant appealed against this judgment to the Supreme Court (högsta domstolen).   Before the Supreme Court the applicant modified her claims and she requested compensation in the amount of 14,303 Swedish Crowns.   On 15 December 1982, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal.   The issue which was referred back to the Water Court is still pending before the Court.   COMPLAINTS   1. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1)that she has not received full compensation for the increased costs for the timber business as a result of the inconveniences from the construction and running of the water power station.   She also alleges that in determining the compensation due account has not been taken of the inflation.   The applicant also alleges that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) has been breached as a result of the protracted proceedings.   Furthermore, it is alleged that by the judgment of 10 April 1953 the applicant acquired a right as a result of the obligation imposed on the Royal Water Power Board to let a sufficient amount of water through to permit log-floating.   This right ceased in 1958, when the Board entered into agreements with the foresters that the logs should be transported in other ways.   The applicant alleges that she has hereby been deprived of a right in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).   2. The applicant also complains that she has not been afforded a determination within a reasonable time of the question of compensation for increased costs for the timber business.   She also submits that the length of the proceedings constitutes an unlawful interference in the exercise of her civil rights.   The applicant submits that Article 6, para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention has been violated.   The applicant also alleges a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) in that the Water Court judge has, for instance at the preliminary hearings which preceded the judgment of 8 March 1978, acted as a special authority separate from the Water Court, and did not act on behalf of the Water Court in its special composition.   The applicant also alleges that there was inequality between the parties in the procedure since the opposite party, the Royal Water Power Board, was a state organ with resources exceeding those of the applicant.   3. Furthermore, the applicant alleges a violation of Article 4 (Art. 4) of the Convention claiming that the compensation paid did not cover certain costs for future work with the timber and she therefore is subjected to forced or compulsory labour.   4. Moreover, the applicant alleges a violation of Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention in that the compensation granted to the various foresters differs in an unjustifiable way.   The applicant refers mainly to one forester who in spite of having a smaller forest obtained a higher compensation than the applicant.   5. The applicant also claims that she had no effective remedy available to her and that there has therefore been a violation of Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention.   The applicant also requests that the Commission examine whether the organs for which the State is responsible have to apply the provisions of the Convention directly which the applicant considers to follow from inter alia Articles 13 and 26 (Art. 13, art. 26) of the Convention.   6. The applicant furthermore states that the public interest was provided for in the building permit granted in 1949 and that the various acts - or omissions - of the National Water Power Board which took advantage of the two suspension judgments aimed at the destruction of her rights as set forth in the Convention.   In this respect, the applicant invokes Articles 17 and 18 (Art. 17, art. 18) of the Convention.   7. Finally, the applicant's sons allege that the question which was referred back to the Water Court by the judgment of the Water Court of Appeal of 26 May 1981 has not been dealt with within a reasonable time.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 13 March 1983 and registered on 10 December 1984.           On 8 October 1985 the Commission decided to give notice of the application to the Government and to invite them to present their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application limited to the complaints concerning length of proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy.           The Government's observations were received by a letter of 5 February 1986 and the applicant's observations in reply were dated 19 April 1986.   SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES   A. The Government   1. Legislation relevant to the complaint   The Swedish legislation governing the erection of constructions in water is based on the principle that water is to be used as a natural resource, but that opposing interests are to be taken into consideration in the matter of exploitation.   The most significant consequences of the requirement that opposing interests should be taken into consideration are that a permission is required for all exploitation of water, and that property owners are to be compensated for damages and encroachments caused by the exploitation.   In view of the facts of the applicant's case and the position taken by the Government, only a few remarks need to be made as regards the procedure by which determination of compensation claims are made.   The legislation governing the applicant's case is basically the 1918 Water Act, which is now replaced by the 1983 Water Act.   Applications for permission to build in water, as well as questions concerning compensation for damages and encroachments resulting from a project, are considered and decided upon by six special courts, called water courts, each of which serves a certain geographical area.   These courts constitute an integral part of the corresponding number of general district courts of first instance, although, when serving in the capacity of water courts, they are composed so as to include technical experts (Chapter 11, Section 21 of the 1918 Act).   Like the chairman of a general court, the chairman of a water court, in his capacity of water rights judge, is empowered to take decisions on certain, mainly procedural, questions explicitly specified in the Water Act.           Decisions and judgments by a water court or a water rights judge may, with a few exceptions that are not relevant to the applicant's case, be appealed to the Water Court of Appeal.   This court forms an integral part of a general Court of Appeal, the Svea Court of Appeal, although composed so as to include technical experts. Decisions and judgments of the Water Court of Appeal may ultimately, subject to rules requiring leave of appeal, be brought before the Supreme Court.   The procedure in the courts is only partly regulated in the Water Act. As regards procedural questions that are not dealt with in this Act, Chapter 11, Section 1 of the Act provides that the rules governing the procedure in the courts of general jurisdiction shall be applied. According to Chapter 49, Section 6 of the 1942 Code of Judicial Procedure (rättegångsbalken), which governs the procedure in the latter courts, a party may appeal from a decision by a court of first instance if, in the party's opinion, the decision results in an unnecessary delay in the final determination of the case.   This right to appeal is, according to Chapter 52, Section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, not subject to any time limit.   2. The Facts   Since the case primarily turns on the question whether this claim for compensation has been determined "within a reasonable time", the Government draw attention to the following circumstances for the purpose of indicating the considerable proportions, as regards the quantity as well as the quality, of the issues involved in a project like in the present case.   2.1 General description of the power plant   The Kilforsen power plant is one of the largest hydro-electric power stations in Sweden.   It is situated between the rivers of Fjällsjöälven and Ångermanälven.   The volume of discharge is 350 cubic metres per second and the height of the fall is 99 metres.   The power plant came into operation in 1953.   It was constructed by the National Water Power Board, which also operates the station.   The Fjällsjöälven is a tributary to the Ångermanälven.   Before joining, the two rivers run more or less parallel for a distance of 6 - 8 kilometres in a generally north to south direction, the Fjällsjöälven running west of the Ångermanälven.   At Imnäs in the Fjällsjöälven, about 20 kilometres upstream from where it joins the Ångermanälven, the Imnäs dam was built.   Water from the Fjällsjöälven is brought from this dam to the power plant via a two kilometre long canal and a 3.7 kilometre long tunnel.   Upstream from the power plant, an artificial lake has been constructed for use as a supply reservoir. A discharge tunnel, 2.7 kilometres long, leads from the power plant to the Ångermanälven.   A dry channel, almost 20 kilometres long and formed by the damming, leads from a point below the Imnäs dam to the point where the Fjällsjöälven previously joined the Ångermanälven. This dry channel is one of the longest in the country and definitely the longest to be found in fertile agricultural and forest land. Several artificial pools have been built in the dry channel.   The power plant has been so designed as to make timber floating possible from the Imnäs dam to the Ångermanälven via an inlet tunnel, the above mentioned canal and supply reservoir, and a log flume. Moreover, the artificial pools are so designed as to allow floating in the dry channel when water is released for this purpose from the Imnäs dam.   The damming area of the Imnäs dam, i.e. the stretch of the river and its tributaries upstream from the dam which are affected by the damming, is 40-50 kilometres long.   For better utilisation of the water, the National Water Power Board has also requested, and been granted, permission to regulate the level of the water in the river system and in some lakes of the damming area both on a 24-hour basis and throughout the year.   As a result of these regulations, a continuous change in the water level adversely affects the surroundings.   Downstream from the Kilforsen power plant is another power plant, Nämnforsen.   The damming area of the Nämnforsen power plant extends past the point where the above mentioned discharge tunnel from the Kilforsen power plant runs into the Ångermanälven.   Claims relating to damage caused to properties in the Kilforsen area by the erection and operation of the Nämnforsen power plant have been merged with the claims settlement process related to the Kilforsen power plant.   Several hundreds of property owners have been affected by the erection and operation of the Kilforsen power plant.   The extent of the damages and encroachments caused by the project varies from property to property.   Practically all properties have been affected in several respects.   Examples of damages and encroachments incurred are detrimental effects on fertile agricultural and forest land or other land of particular value, such as gravel-pits, on timber business and timber floating, on buildings, fences and basis, on fishing, boat traffic, bathing and washing facilities, and on winter routes on the ice.   It has not been possible to deal with all the damages and encroachments caused to the different properties in one context.   The reason for this is not only the large number of claims, but also, and mainly, the difficulty or impossibility of judging in advance the extent of damages and encroachments which may ultimately be caused to property.   Varying weather conditions, precipitation and flows must be observed for a long time, often for several years, to make an assessment of both normal and extreme situations.   In addition, an evaluation must be made of the results of various preventive measures. Owing to all these factors, the settlement of claims must of necessity be a rather long-drawn-out matter when it comes to a project of the size and character of the Kilforsen power plant.   After the National Water Power Board received permission on 30 June 1949 to erect the Kilforsen power plant, the Water Court has passed about 25 judgments pertaining to the effects of the project on various properties.   The Court has in the course of the proceedings held a number of preliminary hearings and also, as regards several issues, in accordance with the desire of the parties and under a provision of the Water Act ordered special expert investigations for the purpose of assessing the damages and encroachments resulting from the project. As will be further developed below, continuous claims proceedings have in fact been in progress until the judgment passed by the Water Court on 3 August 1978.   During this period, i.e. from 1949 to 1978, claim after claim has been settled either by voluntary agreement between the parties, subsequently confirmed by the Court, or by a decision of the Court.   2.2      Chronological list of judgments in the Kilsforsen Case   For the purpose of giving an idea of the extensive activity which has taken place over the years in order to adjudicate the claims related to this power plant project, the Government refer to a chronological list, briefly presenting the judgments rendered in the Kilforsen case. As appears from this list, the Water Court has during the years following the granting of the permission to erect the power plant been continuously engaged in adjudicating claims related to the project. It is emphasised that most of these claims naturally have been of a complicated nature and, therefore, extremely time consuming. Due to the time that has elapsed since the permission was granted and the considerable number of different claims that have been adjudicated over the years, the Government point out that there might have been judgments or decisions in addition to those here listed which have not been brought to the Government's knowledge.   2.3      Judgment of particular interest to the applicant's case   In the judgment of the Water Court of 10 April 1953, by which the National Water Power Board was granted permission to take the power plant into operation, the Water Court also ruled on compensation claims related to the project, among them those concerning the timber business.   As to the latter claims, the Court found, in accordance with the view expressed by an expert, previously appointed by the court, and the parties concerned, that they were closely related to the question of the effects of the project on timber floating and that these effects could not be estimated at this time.   In view of this, the Court decided to postpone the final determination of the claims related to timber business pending the outcome of the investigations and deliberations necessary as regards timber floating.   As to the claims related to timber floating the Court postponed the final determination for a period of ten years.   As regards the compensation claims related to the timber business, the Court also ordered a number of provisional measures pending the final determination.   Of particular relevance to the applicant's case is that the Court ordered the National Water Power Board to provide for satisfactory timber collecting facilities and to compensate, on an annual basis, the increased costs, including accrued interest, on the timber business resulting from the project.   The Court furthermore observed that in case the parties could not agree on the annual amount due, the question could be referred to the Court for determination. No appeal was made against the judgment.   In a judgment of 9 September 1953, the Water Court dealt with, inter alia, the effect of the project on fishing in the drained area. Compensation for losses was awarded, among others, to the applicant.   By the judgment of the Water Court of 30 October 1958, the applicant was awarded compensation for the deterioration in washing and bathing facilities, for fences, and for inconvenience suffered during the construction period.   In the same judgment the court dismissed her claims for compensation for general encroachment as well as certain claims concerning, inter alia, alleged damage to her land and buildings.   In the judgment of 1 March 1965, the Water Court reconsidered the claims related to the timber business.   The court again observed that, due to the close relationship between these claims and questions concerning timber floating, the claims could not be finally determined without taking into consideration the possible outcome of the deliberations that were still being made as regards floating.   The Court also noted that these deliberations were being made, and crucial decisions might be taken, outside the scope of the court proceedings.   In view of this, and while observing that no objection on this point had been made by any party concerned, the Water Court decided to further postpone the final determination of the compensation claims related to the timber business.   The Court also accordingly prolonged the provisional measures ordered in its judgment of 10 April 1953. No appeal was made against the judgment.   In the judgment of the Water Court of 28 April 1965, the applicant was awarded compensation for detrimental effects on boat traffic and washing, including interest accruing since 1953.   In the same judgment, claims concerning fences and an infiltration well were dismissed or rejected.   The final judgment of the Water Court was rendered on 8 March 1978. Prior to this judgment, the National Water Power Board had, on 18 October 1971, made a proposal concerning compensation for the claims related to the timber business.   The proposal caused objections from some of the counterparties.   A preliminary hearing was held before the Water Court on 14 April 1972.   The National Water Power Board submitted complementary material on 28 April of the same year and on 12 January 1973.   Further objections were raised by the counterparties and there were also written communications directly between the parties.   A preliminary hearing was, again, held on 14 February 1974, subsequent to which a number of voluntary agreements on the claims were concluded.   On 30 December 1976, the National Water Power Board clarified its final position and requested the Water Court to finally determine the claims.   Objections as regards the position taken by the Board were made by the applicant in a petition dated 8 August 1977.   Having considered the issues involved, the Water Court rendered its final judgment on 8 March 1978.   The judgment was appealed to the Water Court of Appeal by, among others, the applicant.   In an account of the litigation costs as regards the proceedings in the court below, the counsel for, among others, the applicant made some statements that, in the Government's view, appear to throw some light on the proceedings as far as the group of claimants represented by this counsel is concerned.   Thus, in respect of the time during which the claims were pending before the Water Court, the work performed by the counsel was said to have been aimed at a settlement of the claims outside the court.   It was also pointed out that these claimants, a rather limited group in relation to the total number of claimants originally involved, had been at variance with the vast majority of claimants, which seems to have complicated the handling of these claims.   Furthermore, as regards the said counsel's claim for compensation for litigation costs in the Water Court of Appeal, the Government draw attention to the following passage of the Court's reasoning concerning this claim: " ...   The bills of costs include 70 items, of which 19 refer to requests for, or receipt of notification concerning, adjournments for taking measures.   The Water Court of Appeal is of the opinion that the great number of adjournments which have contributed to the length of the proceedings before the Water Court of Appeal, should be taken into account as a factor leading to a reduction of the fee ... ".   In its judgment of 26 May 1981, the Water Court of Appeal, while confirming the remaining parts of the judgment of the Water Court, referred to the latter court for further consideration the issues concerning one of the disputed timber collecting facilities.   As regards the claims thus referred to, and still pending before, the Water Court, the Government submit the following information from the said court.   In 1984, none of the parties having petitioned the Court to have the claim determined, the Water Court notified the parties that the claim was still pending.   In September 1984, the National Water Board petitioned the Court and requested that a final decision be taken.   In December 1984, the applicant, when responding to the petition of the Board, presented a number of claims relating to questions that had already been finally determined in judgments that had gained legal force.   After the applicant had changed her counsel and restricted her claims to come within the scope of the proceedings, a main hearing was held in July 1985.   Subsequent to the hearing, the parties concerned have notified the Court that discussions are in progress as regards a new timber collecting facility on a more favourable location.   It appears as if this notification is the only reason why the Court is still withholding its final determination of the claim.   The applicant, among others, appealed against the judgment of the Water Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.   In the first petition to this Court of 13 June 1981, the complainants requested an adjournment for stating the grounds for the complaint until 30 September 1981.   In a petition of 30 November 1981, the complaint was limited to the question of increased costs as regards the timber business.   In this petition, a request was also made for another adjournment, until 31 January 1982, for further clarifying the complaint as regards one of the complainants.   On 21 November 1982, one of the complainants withdrew his complaint, and the remaining ones stated their final positions as regards the complaint.   In a decision of 15 December of the same year, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave of appeal.   In this context, it should finally be observed that the considerations concerning timber floating ultimately resulted in a gradual discontinuation of timber floating in the area concerned, the last floating season being the summer of 1982, and that the Government on 16 September 1982 closed the river system as a public floatway.   3. Exhaustion of domestic remedies   The domestic remedy rule is founded on the idea that, before a complaint could be considered by the Commission, the respondent State should have an opportunity to correct, by its own means and within the framework of its own legal system, the wrong allegedly suffered by an applicant.   In the case-law of the Commission, this has consistently been construed to mean that, for the domestic remedies to be exhausted, it is not enough to have exhausted these remedies as regards some aspect of an applicant's case, but the particular complaint brought before the Commission must have been raised before the competent domestic courts or authorities.   As regards the present case, the applicant has not at any time during the lengthy proceedings made any objection indicating that, in her opinion, the proceedings were being unnecessarily protracted.   On the contrary, the two judgments of 1953 and 1965 respectively, by which the Water Court decided to postpone the final determination of the issues concerning the timber business, seem to have been rendered, as far as the postponement of the final determination of the compensation claims is concerned, with the consent of the parties involved.   Furthermore, none of these judgments were appealed against, although this could have been done.   Moreover, the applicant could, regardless of these judgments of 1953 and 1965, at any time during the proceedings have required the Water Court to make a final determination of her claims and, in case the Water Court had rejected this request, she could have appealed to the Water Court of Appeal in accordance with the provision in Chapter 49 Section 6 of the Code of Judicial Procedure.   In view of the above, the Government submit that, as regards the allegation that the compensation claims have not been determined within a reasonable time, the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.   4. Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention : "Reasonable time"   In the Government's view, there are three different aspects that need to be examined when considering whether the applicant's compensation claims were determined within a reasonable time. Firstly, the time has to be viewed in light of the number and complexity of the issues involved.   Secondly, the degree of inconvenience suffered by the applicant as a result of the alleged delay needs to be taken into consideration. Thirdly, the question whether the length of the proceedings is reasonable or not necessarily has to be viewed in light of the manner in which they were conducted by the applicant herself. The Government will in the following deal with these three aspects one by one.   As to the first aspect, the Government observe that the final determination of the claims involved in the present project of necessity has to be viewed as a long-range commission.   This is so because of the significant proportions of the project and the considerable number and complexity of the claims involved, a great deal of which could not be finally determined without considering future contingencies.   In this context, the Government draw attention to the fact that the Water Court, during almost thirty years following the granting of the permission to erect the power plant, was continuously engaged in the process of adjudicating claims related to the project.   Although this might seem to be a remarkably long period of time, in the Government's opinion, there is nothing in the documents presented to suggest that the process, viewed in its entirety, has been unduly protracted.   The applicant's claims were particularly complicated by the fact that they were so closely related to timber floating and that the floating was subject to a long-range investigation concerning its future existence.   In view of this, the Water Court in its judgment of 10 April 1953 took the position of principle that the final determination of these claims should be postponed pending the outcome of the investigation as regards timber floating, and that in the meantime the damages and encroachments were to be compensated on an annual basis. In the Government's opinion, the view thus taken by the Water Court seems reasonable, and it appears to have been shared by all parties concerned, including the applicant.   In the judgment of 1 March 1965 the Water Court found that there was still considerable uncertainty as regards the outcome of the considerations on timber floating and that, therefore, the final determination of the compensation claims related to the timber business should be further postponed.   No other view was expressed by any of the parties concerned.   It does not appear from the documents presented to the Government at what time the investigation of timber floating had proceeded so far as to enable the Court to draw the conclusions necessary for the final determination of the compensation claims related to the timber business.   The Government observe, however, that timber floating in the waters concerned was not terminated until 1982.   In view hereof the Government maintain that there is nothing in the complaint, or in any other document presented to the Government, to suggest that the applicant's compensation claims have been at all unnecessarily protracted.   As to the second aspect, i.e. the degree of inconvenience suffered by the applicant, the Government draw attention to the following facts.   In its very first judgment of 30 June 1949 the Water Court decided that, as regards the timber business, the increased costs resulting from the power plant project were to be compensated on an annual basis, and that disagreements as to the amount due each year could be referred to the Water Court.   More elaborate decisions on this question were taken by the Court in a number of judgments rendered during the years of 1950-1978, most particularly in the judgments of 10 April 1953 and 1 March 1965.   The practical result of these judgments was that during all years the applicant was fully compensated on an annual basis for any economic loss resulting from the power plant project.   In view of this, the Government submit that the possible inconvenience following from the uncertainty as regards the final lump sum compensation for estimated future losses could not have been such as to render the postponement of its final determination unreasonable.   This is particularly so, since the possible magnitude of this final compensation was reasonably foreseeable in view of the court's considerations as regards the previous annual compensations and its final determinations of a large number of corresponding claims of others than the applicant.   As regards the third aspect, i.e. the manner in which the proceedings were conducted by the applicant herself, the Government observe that the claims for compensation involved were such as to admit their settlement by the parties themselves outside the Court.   This also appears to have been the principal strategy of the applicant.   Because of this, there was no responsibility of the Water Court to take any steps for the purpose of expediting the proceedings.   On the contrary, in view of the character of the claims, it might even have been inappropriate for the Court to do so unless required by a party.   As has already been observed above, there is no indication whatever that the applicant at any time during the proceedings petitioned the court to have her claims for compensation finally determined.   There are, on the other hand, indications that the final determination might have been considerably protracted for reasons entirely related to the applicant herself or her counsel.   As has been indicated above, more than one fourth of the items listed in the counsel's account before the Water Court of Appeal of the litigation costs, seems to have referred to measures taken in respect of requests, on behalf of, among others, the applicant, for adjournments for taking steps necessary to bring the proceedings forward. Furthermore, when appealing the case to the Supreme Court, the applicant allowed herself five and a half months to state the basis for her claims and another year to finally specify them.   It should also be observed that the Water Court's final determination of the applicant's compensation claims of 8 March 1978 was made in response to a request, not by the applicant, but by her counterparty.   In view of this, the Government submit that there has been no violation of the applicant's right to a determination of her claims within a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   5. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1)   On the same grounds as those referred to under 4. above, the Government submit that there has been no violation of the applicant's right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).   6. Article 13 of the Convention (Art. 13)   In accordance with what has been stated above, the judgments of the Water Court of 10 April 1953 and 1 March 1965, by which the final determination of the compensation claims was postponed, could have been appealed to the Water Court of Appeal and, ultimately, to the Supreme Court.   Furthermore, the applicant could have, regardless of these judgments, at any time during the proceedings requested a final determination of her claims, a rejection of which request would have been subject to appeal in accordance with the provision of Chapter 49 Section 6 of the Code of Judicial Procedure.   In the Government's opinion there is no reason to consider any of these remedies as not being effective within the meaning of the Convention.   Consequently, the Government submit that the applicant had effective remedies as required by Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention.   7. The issue of storage space which is still pending before the Water Court   The Government submit that the grounds referred to above are equally relevant in respect of the present question.   The Government emphasise that none of the parties concerned had taken any steps to bring the proceedings forward until the applicant's counterparty in September 1984 petitioned the Court to have the question finally determined, that the proceedings were then delayed due to negligence entirely assignable to the applicant or her counsel, and that since July 1985 the final determination appears to have been withheld only because the parties jointly are re-negotiating the dispute.   In view of this, the Government submit that there has been no violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.   8. The Admissibility   The Government have no objection to the admissibility as far as the six months' rule of Article 26 (Art. 26) is concerned.   However, the Government submit that the application should be rejected on the ground that the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention or, alternatively, for reasons which will be elaborated below, that it should be rejected ratione materiae for falling outside the scope of the Convention or for being manifestly ill-founded.   9. The merits   As regards the parts of the complaint on which the Government has been invited to submit their observations, the applicant has alleged violations of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) on the ground that, as a result of the protracted proceedings, she has been deprived of her rights under the said Articles, and of Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention on the ground that she has not had an effective remedy in respect of these alleged violations.   The Government observe that the claims concerning damages and encroachments on the timber business were before the Water Court in the proceedings resulting in the judgment of 10 April 1953. During the proceedings, the applicant consented to the principal approach of having the final determination of the claims postponed pending the outcome of the investigations as regards timber floating. Judgment was rendered on 10 April 1953, as far as these claims are concerned, in accordance with the position thus taken by the applicant before the Court.   The judgment was not appealed against, and entered into force on 24 April 1953.   It is not even alleged by the applicant that the contingencies, on which the final determination of the claims thus was made dependent, did ever occur prior to the rendering of the final judgment on 8 March 1978.   In the Government's opinion, it could be questioned whether at all the Convention, which entered into force on 3 September 1953, could be construed so as to guarantee any right in respect of court proceedings pending at the time the Convention entered into force.   Assuming, however, that such a guarantee could be read into the Convention, the Government, nevertheless, submit that such an interpretation could by no means be viewed to include any right, which prior to the Convention's entry into force had been effectively waived in court proceedings and, although merely as to its principle, ruled on accordingly by the court in a judgment which had gained legal force.   In view of this, the Government submits that the complaint in its entirety falls outside the scope of the Convention.   In case the Commission does not share this view, the Government submit with reference to their considerations as accounted for above, that as regards Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention and   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P-1) the application is manifestly ill-founded. The Government also submit that the complaint under Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention is manifestly ill-founed.   10. Conclusions   The position of the Government is, concerning admissibility, that the application should be declared inadmissible on the ground that the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies or, alternatively, for falling outside the scope of the Convention or for being manifestly ill-founded, and concerning the merits, that there has been no violation of the Convention or the First Protocol.   B. The Applicant   1. The Facts   The applicant submits that the amount of compensation which was fixed in the judgment of 10 April 1953 is without interest from many points of view, in particular since the applicant never received any such compensation.   The applicant points out that it took until 1971, i.e. 22 years after the permit was granted, before the National Water Power Board was able to present an investigation, which was so inadequate that the Water Court had to order that the Board should improve and complete the investigation which was done in 1973.   It was only in 1976 that