CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 16 juillet 1987

.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 }  EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS   Application No. 10537/83   Väinö USKELA   against   SWEDEN   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 16 July 1987)     TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                 page   I.    INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-14) .........................      1        A.   The application          (paras. 2-4)   ...................................     1        B.   The proceedings          (paras. 5-10) ....................................    1        C.   The present Report          (paras. 11-14) ..................................... 2   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS (paras. 15-31) ...........     4        A.   The particular circumstances of the case          (paras. 15-28) ..................................... 4            a.   Proceedings relating to the issue of the              expropriation permit              (paras. 16-21) ................................. 4            b.   Proceedings relating to the determination              of the terms of the expropriation              (paras. 22-24) ................................. 6            c.   The transfer of the ownership of the property              (paras. 25-28) ................................. 7        B.   Relevant domestic law          (paras. 29-31) ..................................... 8   III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES (paras. 32-44) ...........    10        A.   The applicant          (paras. 33-38) .................................... 10        B.   The Government          (paras. 39-44) .................................... 13   IV.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras. 45-75) ...........     17        A.   Points at issue          (para. 45-51) ..................................... 17        B.   Article 6 of the Convention          (paras. 52-65) .................................... 18              a.      As to the applicability of Article 6                 para. 1 of the Convention (paras. 52-57)....18            b.      As to the compliance with Article 6 para. 1                 of the Convention                 (paras. 58-65) .............................18        C.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (paras. 66-74).........19          D.   Recapitulation          (para. 75) ........................................21   CONCURRING OPINION BY MR. FROWEIN, joined by MM. TRECHSEL, WEITZEL, SOYER, BATLINER and Sir Basil HALL...22   APPENDIX I      HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ..................23     APPENDIX II     DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY ............25     I.       INTRODUCTION   1.       The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.       The application   2.       The applicant, Mr.   Väinö Uskela, is a Swedish citizen born in 1904 and resident at Johanneshov.   He is an artist by profession.   He was up to 23 August 1986 represented before the Commission by Mr. Peter Nobel, a lawyer practising at Uppsala.   As from 23 August 1986, the applicant is represented by Mr.   Gunnar Ljungman, a lawyer practising at Uppsala.   3.       The Government are represented by their Agent, Mr.   Hans Corell, Ambassador, Under-Secretary at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Stockholm.   4.       The case relates to an expropriation permit regarding the applicant's real estate.   The applicant complains that he was deprived of his property in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that he had no possibility of having the dispute relating to the issuing of the expropriation permit examined by a tribunal satisfying the conditions of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   B.       The proceedings   5.       The application was introduced on 11 May 1983 and registered on 19 August 1983.   On 7 December 1983 the Commission decided, in accordance with Rule 42, para. 2, sub-para. b of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite them to present before 25 February 1984 their observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.           The Government's observations were dated 23 February 1984 and the applicant's observations in reply were dated 29 March 1984.           On 3 October 1984 the Commission, after an examination of the admissibility of the application, decided to invite the Government to submit, before 30 November 1984, further observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention.           The Government's observations were dated 29 November 1984 and the applicant's observations in reply were dated 14 January 1985.           On 6 March 1985 the Commission decided to invite the Government to submit, before 26 April 1985, supplementary observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.           The Government's observations were dated 23 April 1985 and the applicant's observations in reply were dated 12 June 1985.   6.       On 10 October 1985 the Commission decided to declare inadmissible the applicant's complaint that the expropriation permit as such was a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The remainder of the application was declared admissible (1).   7.       The parties were then invited to submit any additional observations on the merits of the application which they wished to make.           The applicant submitted further observations by letter of 14 February 1986 and the Government submitted observations on 21 March 1986.   These observations were transmitted to the other party for information.   8.       On 10 May and 11 October 1986 the Commission considered the state of proceedings of the case.   On 3 March 1987 the Commission deliberated on the merits of the case and, on 7 and 8 July 1987, it again deliberated on the merits and took the final votes in the case.   9.       Legal aid under the Addendum to the Commission's Rules of Procedure was granted to the applicant on 18 May 1984.   10.       After declaring the case admissible the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 (b) of the Convention, placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case.   In the light of the parties' reactions the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which a friendly settlement can be effected.   C.       The present Report   11.      The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes in plenary session, the following members being present:                         MM. C. A. NØRGAARD                           G. SPERDUTI                           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 __________________ (1)      See decision on admissibility, Appendix II.           The text of the Report was adopted by the Commission on 16 July 1987 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   12.      The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, is           (1)   to establish the facts, and           (2)   to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose              a breach by the Government of their obligations              under the Convention.   13.      A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application forms Appendix II.   14.      The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.     II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.       Particular circumstances of the case   15.      The applicant had a leasehold (tomträtt) on a site and on the building erected thereon which was named Lärarinnan 4 in the real estate register.   The 1981 assessment value of the property for tax purposes (taxeringsvärde) was 270,000 Swedish Crowns, of which 130,000 related to the building on the property.   The building has 12 flats.           The applicant's property has been subject to expropriation proceedings and the ownership to the property has changed during the time in question.   In the following the facts are set out under three different headings, the first relating to the proceedings leading to the issue of the expropriation permit, the second relating to the proceedings concerning the terms of the expropriation and the third relating to the transfer of the ownership.             a.       Proceedings relating to the issue of the                 expropriation permit   16.        On 13 March 1980 the Building Committee (byggnadsnämnden) ordered, pursuant to Section 16 of the Act on Penalties and Interventions in Cases of Illegal Constructions etc. (lagen om påföljder och ingripanden vid olovligt byggande m.m.), that the applicant should, at the latest on 30 May 1980, have taken certain measures indicated in a statement of the Building Permits Office (byggnadslovsbyrån), in order to restore the property to an acceptable level.           The statement of the Building Permits Office referred to was dated 4 March 1980.   It reads inter alia as follows:   "On 26 June 1979 the Property Committee (fastighetsnämnden) decided to ask the Property Office (fastighetskontoret)   'to request the Building Committee to take necessary measures under the Building Ordinance (byggnadsstadgan) and the Act on Penalties and Interventions in Cases of Illegal Constructions etc. with the aim of avoiding sanitary inconveniences, mismanagement, disfigurement etc. on the leaseholder's right to Lärarinnan 4.   The background to this decision is numerous complaints from persons living in the neighbourhood, tenants associations and political organisations that the property is neglected and that some flats are not used for dwelling purposes. Such complaints have also been submitted to the health care authorities and to the Building Committee'.   The property is very neglected.   The following measures must be taken on the property in order that its state can be considered to be such as prescribed by Section 50 of the Building Ordinance:   1.       The roof must be repaired.   2.       The system of outflow of water on the roof must be repaired.   3.       Broken windows must be replaced.   4.       Damaged plaster must be taken away and the facade be re-plastered.           For the garden to be in such state as prescribed by Section 53 of the Building Ordinance, all rubbish must be removed.           The owner of the property has been invited in writing to submit an opinion and a proposal for measures to be taken in order to remedy the deficiencies.   In the reply it is said that the garden has been tidied up and that the plaster works will be started this spring.   However, in the garden there is still a stack of demolition timber and the like."           The applicant received the order from the Building Committee on 14 May 1980.   He did not comply with the order.           The applicant could have appealed against the order to the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen).   The time-limit for appeal was three weeks.   The applicant did appeal against the order, but out of time.   On 31 July 1980 the County Administrative Board of Stockholm rejected the appeal for being out of time.   17.      In June 1980 the municipality of Stockholm applied to the Government for a permit to expropriate the applicant's property. After obtaining the opinion of the County Administrative Board of Stockholm and of the applicant, the Government decided to grant the requested permit to expropriate.   The Government's decision, which was dated 12 November 1981, reads inter alia as follows:   "The municipality has, in support of its application, inter alia referred to the fact that the property has for a long time been the subject of the municipality's attention since the building which is erected on the property is gravely run down and in essence not inhabited.   The building has three storeys and is said to have twelve flats of which one or possibly two are used by (the applicant).   The other flats have not, according to the municipality, been in use for a long time.   The outer area gives the impression of deficient maintenance with broken windows, plaster falling off, untidy garden etc.   According to the municipality the property is a very disturbing element in the housing environment.   (The applicant) has been ordered by the Building Committee under threat of a fine to restore the property to an acceptable level.           On the basis of the investigation it is established that the property is neglected.   (The applicant) has not complied with the order of restoring the building and the garden.   The Government consider that (the applicant) has shown a clear lack of interest and ability to keep the property in order.   In the Government's opinion the facts are such that grave neglect is feared.   The application should therefore be granted.           Pursuant to Chapter 2 Section 7 of the Expropriation Act, the Government grant the municipality of Stockholm a permit to expropriate (the property).   The matter of expropriation should be pursued at the latest on 12 November 1982 by a summons before the court."   18.      The applicant maintains that the Government's decision was based on investigations made by the County Administrative Board and on an application by the municipality of Stockholm, which are both alleged to be wrong and misleading.   19.      By letters of 5 March and 5 April 1982 the applicant requested the Government to reconsider their decision in view of new circumstances.   He indicated that on 21 January 1982 he had sold the property to a person, who intended to restore it immediately.   There were no tenants in the building any more, the only person who lived there being the applicant.           By decision of 15 April 1982 the Government rejected the request stating that the matter had been finally decided on 12 November 1981.   20.      The applicant then applied to the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten) for reopening of the matter (resning).   This request was refused by a decision of 16 November 1982.   21.      The applicant has also complained to the Standing Constitutional Committee of the Parliament (riksdagens konstitutionsutskott), and to the Chancellor of Justice (justitiekanslern), but without success.           b.       Proceedings relating to the determination                 of the terms of the expropriation   22.      On 22 January 1982 the municipality of Stockholm applied for a summons of the applicant before the Real Estate Court (fastighetsdomstolen) of the Stockholm District Court (tingsrätt) in order to have the compensation terms for the expropriation determined. The municipality also requested an advance transfer of the ownership.   23.      On 2 July 1982 the Stockholm District Court, after having inspected the property, refused the request for advance transfer stating the following:           "The Court has observed the following at the inspection.         There is nothing remarkable to note as regards the roof.         One chimney needed repair or rebuilding.   The walls of the         building needed replastering badly.   The plaster had fallen         off in certain places, but these parts of the walls did not         show any considerable damage.   Some window panes were         missing and had been replaced by boards.   In some balconies         the girders had rusted and the surface was cracked.   Windows         and door-frames needed painting.   The apartments were in need         of total repair.   In those parts of the building that were         not heated, the water had been drained off.           From what could be seen at this inspection, the building is         in great need of repair, but this need does not call for an         advance transfer of ownership to the municipality before the         Court has ruled on all the issues of this case.           The request for advance transfer of ownership cannot         therefore be granted."   24.      Subsequently the municipality, after deciding not to pursue the expropriation in view of the change of owner, withdrew its application before the Real Estate Court which, on 24 November 1986, struck the case off its list.           The municipality's decision to withdraw its action before the Court was based inter alia on a report on an investigation by the Property Office, dated 28 April 1986, submitted to the Property Committee.   From this report it appears that the property had been partly restored during 1982.   Thus, the facade and one of the staircases with six flats had been restored and the cellar had been partly restored.   In the report it was estimated that the remaining restoration of the property would cost roughly 1 - 1.5 million Swedish crowns.           c.       The transfer of the ownership of the property   25.      On 21 January 1982 the applicant sold his leaseholder's right for 850,000 Swedish Crowns.   The buyer Mr.   S, obtained a preliminary registration (vilande lagfart) of the acquisition.   A condition for acquiring a property for tenancy purposes is that the buyer obtains a permit from the Rent Board (hyresnämnden) to purchase the property . The rules are laid down in the Act on the Acquisition of Property for Tenancy Purposes (lagen om förvärv av hyresfastighet).   Mr.   S submitted an application for such a permit, but he later withdrew his application, and the purchase thereby became void.           The property was then sold by the applicant to a flat- owners' association (bostadsrättsförening) on the same conditions as had previously been agreed with Mr.   S.           This sale was considered under the Act on the Acquisition of Property for Tenancy Purposes by the Rent Board and, upon appeal, by the House and Tenancy Court (bostadsdomstolen), which on 1 November 1984 did not approve the sale.   The sale thus became void.   26.      In the meantime, on 19 November 1982, the flat-owners' association had obtained a loan of one million SEK.   Security for the loan was given by way of a mortgage on the leasehold.           The loan was not duly paid and the creditors instituted litigation against the applicant requesting that the loan, including interest and costs, be paid from the applicant's property.           This claim was granted by the District Court of Stockholm on 27 December 1983 and its decision was confirmed by the Svea Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt) on 28 June 1984.   On 19 February 1985 the Supreme Court (högsta domstolen) refused to grant leave to appeal. The applicant's petition for re-opening of the proceedings was rejected by the Supreme Court on 30 August 1985.   27.      As a result the applicant's property was sold by the Enforcement Office (kronofogdemyndigheten) at a public auction on 4 February 1986 to a building company for 1,841,OOO SEK.   Before the public auction the Enforcement Office had requested from an independent company an assessment of the value of the property.   The assessment resulted in a value of 1,300,000 SEK.           The applicant appealed against the public auction.   The appeal was rejected by the Court of Appeal on 4 March 1986.   Subsequently, the auction acquired legal force.           The distribution to creditors took place on 5 March 1986.   The applicant did not receive any money.   28.      On 7 April 1986 the purchase-deed was issued and on 10 April 1986 the applicant was evicted from the property by the Enforcement Office.       B.       Relevant domestic law   29.      The legislation applicable in the applicant's case is the 1972 Expropriation Act (expropriationslagen).   Under this Act, expropriation is carried out in two stages.   In the first stage the Government - with some exceptions - decide whether expropriation should be authorised.   If expropriation is to take place, an expropriation permit is issued.   The Government's decision is final.   A decision to grant an expropriation permit does not automatically lead to expropriation.   It entitles the holder of the permit to continue to the second stage, i.e. to institute expropriation proceedings before the Real Estate Court.   An expropriation permit shall indicate the latest date at which the applicant, normally a municipality, has to bring the case to the Real Estate Court for settlement, inter alia, of the transfer date and the compensation.   The expropriation is completed when the compensation has been fixed and paid.   The Real Estate Court cannot review the expropriation permit as such.   A decision by the Real Estate Court can be appealed to the Court of Appeal and from there to the Supreme Court.   30.      Under the Expropriation Act, expropriation permits may be obtained by municipalities for various reasons.   Under Chapter 2, Section 7, permits may be granted for properties suffering from gross neglect.   This section reads:           (Swedish)           "Expropriation får ske för att försätta eller hålla fastighet         i tillfredsställande skick, när grov vanvård föreligger eller         kan befaras uppkomma."           (English)           "Expropriation may be granted, for the purpose of restoring         the property to a satisfactory condition or of maintaining         it in such a condition, when the property is gravely         neglected or there is a risk of such neglect."           When interpreting the condition "gravely neglected", guidance can be found in the Government's proposal of 1970 for amendments of the 1917 Act on Expropriation, where it is stated that neglect of buildings for tenancy purposes affects mainly the tenants.   Therefore, it was considered important that actions could be taken at such an early stage as to prevent undue difficulties arising for the tenants. Thus, it was thought that expropriation should be possible, not only when gross neglect is apparent, but also when there are firm reasons to believe that a building may be neglected in the future.           In the legislative procedure the problems of assessing the condition were also discussed.   It was noted that the evidence needed could vary from case to case.   One factor, which would constitute a reason for expropriation, could be that the owner had not complied with orders to maintain his property.   Another could be that there was evidence that the owner systematically neglected his property.   A sufficient reason for expropriation is that the owner has shown a lack of interest in or capability of maintaining his property. There must thus be evidence of defects on the property, as well as a lack of interest on the part of the owner in maintaining the property.   31.      Expropriation may not be granted if the purpose can be appropriately achieved in some other way or if the general or individual disadvantages of the expropriation prevail over the advantages which can be gained from such an action (Chapter 2, Section 12 of the Expropriation Act).   III.     SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES   32.      The parties' submissions on the merits have been made both at the admissibility stage and at the merits stage.   The following is a summary of these submissions.   A.       The applicant   33.      Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 prescribes that 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.           Chapter 2, Section 12 of the Expropriation Act provides that expropriation should not be granted, if the purpose could be appropriately achieved in some other way.   If the case is one of grave neglect of property or risk thereof, the obvious action first to be taken by the authorities is to order the owner under threat of a fine to take the necessary steps to maintain or restore the property.   This possibility is also open to the authorities according to the Act on Penalties and Interventions in Cases of Illegal Constructions etc. Sections 16 and 17 of that Act allow the authorities to order the owner to take appropriate steps under threat of a fine.   It is therefore submitted that, if the case had been dealt with according to Swedish law, the applicant should have been ordered by the municipality to repair the property or risk being fined.   34.      The Government's decision of 12 November 1981 concerning the expropriation permit indicated that the applicant had been given such an order and that he had been fined.   This is not, however, correct. The Government as well as the County Administrative Board accepted an incorrect statement by the municipality.           The essential element in the applicant's grievances is that no other ways were tried before the municipality applied for the expropriation permit.   No investigation was made into the applicant's economic possibilities to repair and maintain the property and no possibility was offered to the applicant to defend his civil rights and proper interest before any impartial tribunal or other authority.   35.      The applicant describes the background of the expropriation permit as follows:           On 30 November 1972 the District Court of Stockholm rejected a claim from the municipality of Stockholm that the applicant be obliged, under threat of a fine of 5,OOO SEK, to remove certain storage from his property.   The Court apparently found that the municipality's grievances against the applicant and the way he took care of his property were legally unfounded.   However, as from that date the politicians and the authorities of Stockholm sought to achieve their aim without litigation before public and impartial tribunals.   The question has been raised as to what is at the root of the conflict between the applicant and the municipality.   A very probable answer has been suggested in the fact that the tenants' association, which has political influence in particular on the social-democratic party, of which Mr.   Hulth is a powerful member in his capacity as a member of the city council, has demanded action against the applicant with the purpose of forcing him to allow more tenants into the property.   This is an assumption and not a proven fact.   Reference is made to a document of 7 November 1978 produced by the Legal Department (juridiska avdelningen) of the Stockholm City Council which concludes as follows:   "From the above presented investigation it appears that none of the legal remedies under consideration could be used in order to force the leaseholder to make the building on Lärarinnan 4 fit for dwelling and lease the flats.   From the sections concerning the Building Ordinance (byggnadsstadgan) and expropriation, it appears that if the leaseholder fails several times to comply with the Building Committee's   orders aiming at repairing the building's exterior then thereafter if the exterior is so gravely neglected that grave neglect according to the Expropriation Act could be considered to be at hand, then expropriation could be resorted to."           On 14 May 1980 the applicant received an order from the Property Office of the municipality of Stockholm, dated 13 March 1980. It ordered the applicant to undertake certain repairs on the exterior of the building.   The claim to remove certain storage from the property, which had been rejected by the court in 1972, was repeated. The order referred to an official statement from a subdivision of the office, the Building Permits Office (byggnadslovsbyrån), dated 4 March 1980.           The applicant was ordered to complete the works before the end of May 1980.   This order would have been unreasonable even if it had been communicated to him closer to its date of issue, on 13 March 1980, and not, as was the case, on 14 May 1980.           The applicant points out that the order which applied to him was not subject to a conditional fine in case of non-compliance.   Any assertion to the contrary is an erroneous assumption by the Government.   In the applicant's opinion this issue is of the greatest importance, as it shows that the municipality of Stockholm has not exhausted other remedies to achieve their purpose.   Thus the granting of expropriation was in violation of Chapter 2, Section 12, sub-section 1 of the Expropriation Act.           Before the expropriation permit was granted by the Government on 12 November 1981, the applicant sent several letters to various authorities describing measures taken or planned for the maintenance of the property.   But he never had the opportunity of stating the true facts and his views or arguments before any independent or impartial body.   36.      The applicant refers to the Government's statement that an expropriation permit is issued in accordance with the various conditions in the law.   Although the Government are a political body the decision is not entirely political, as it is subject to the provisions of the law.   A problem arises, in the applicant's view, when the Government's decision has not been arrived at in accordance with the law, as in the present case, where the decision was based on incorrect information from local authorities.   It is the absence of any effective legal remedy against such an unlawful decision, which forms the basis of the applicant's complaint.           It is understandable that decisions in expropriation cases are entrusted to the Government in order to ensure that the same practice is applies in all cases.   But the possibility of judicial control as to the lawfulness of the decision would not undermine the efforts to make the practice consistent.           The procedure in matters of expropriation is of an administrative nature and does not include any public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.   As the permit was granted by the Government there is no other simple legal remedy since no appeal lies against the Government's decision.   37.      As regards the condition "public interest" in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant submits that the public need or public interest referred to here is subjectively alleged by the municipality, but has never been objectively tested against the conditions of the law, nor has there been any examination of the possibilities of trying other appropriate ways to achieve the maintainance of the property. At the time there were no tenants on the property.   There was no question of any disadvantages for neighbours, passers-by or children as has been incorrectly alleged by the municipality.           As the property was repaired and restored, the question remains why the expropriation had to go on, if the only purpose was to prevent neglect.   If the Government find that they have no possibility to revoke the expropriation permit without the cooperation of the municipality, this question should be directed to the municipality.           The applicant can agree with the Government that the expropriation permit is not the sole factor affecting the value or use of the property, but it is certainly a factor of the greatest importance.   No similar plan had been published before the expropriation, as the sole ground for this expropriation was said to be the grave neglect or the risk of grave neglect of the property and nothing else.           The Government consider that the applicant has no reason for this complaint, "since he has brought the expropriation upon himself". This argument does not appear well-founded because this is exactly what the entire dispute is about.   The argument is self-defeating. The applicant has never had the opportunity of defending himself against the accusations of grave neglect.   No evidence was required to support these accusations by the municipality.           The property was in fact locked and no one could enter it without the permission of the owner.   The applicant therefore asserts that no representative of the municipality, the County Administrative Board or any other officer has even inspected the property other than from the street.           If the proceedings in this case are correct, it means that any civil servant of the municipality could just pass by any property and decide that it was gravely neglected or that there was a risk of such neglect and then draw up a report for the purpose of applying for an expropriation permit without the owner having any real possibility of refuting what has been alleged against him.   38.      The applicant concludes that he has been the victim of a breach of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.       B.       The Government   39.      The Government recall that in its decision on the admissibility of the case (Appendix II) the Commission made the following statement:   "As regards the complaint about the fact that the expropriation procedure is now being carried out, the Commission recalls that the applicant has complained that the expropriation is at the same time illegal under Swedish law and in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, since it is not justified irrespective of the award of compensation. The Commission finds that in this respect there were no effective remedies available to the applicant."           The Government submit that they are not sure as to how this statement should be construed, considering the fact that the Commission has declared inadmissible the complaint that the expropriation permit as such was a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   With reference to the above statement, the Commission concludes that the application cannot be declared inadmissible with reference to the six months' rule.   The implication of this reasoning by the Commission and which really belongs to the spheres of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention will be dealt with below.   In the event that the Commission considers that there are still issues remaining under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Government submit the following.   40.      As the case now stands the property was never expropriated while in the hands of the applicant.   The property was sold at a public auction.    From the judgment of the District Court it appears that the applicant claimed that he had been deceived by Mr.   S. The applicant had been cheated both in connection with the sale of the property and when the loan was taken.   The idea was that the building should be repaired.   The applicant and the association had accepted an offer for renovation of the inside of the building for SEK 42,000 and agreed that the costs for external renovation must not exceed SEK 90,000.   He had agreed with Mr.   S that the entire renovation must not cost more than SEK 132,000.   Mr.   S was not authorised to mortgage the property for a higher amount.   This fact should have been apparent to the creditor.   The applicant accepted the fact that certain flats had been renovated but contested that more than SEK 200,000 had been invested in the leaseholder's right.   He was not aware of the fact that the association had borrowed one million SEK until he read about it in a newspaper some time during spring 1983.           The Government's decision of 12 December 1981 to issue the expropriation permit refers to an order from the Building Committee that the applicant should repair his house.   This order was not, as is erroneously indicated in the decision, issued on penalty of a fine. This error might be the result of a mixing up of different kinds of orders related to the property.   41.      Due to the latest development, the situation has in some ways become partly similar to the one in the Sporrong and Lönnroth Case (Eur.   Court H.R., Sporrong and Lönnroth judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52).   An expropriation permit was granted, but no expropriation took place.   Following the Court's line of argument in the said case, cf. also case of James and Others (Eur.   Court H.R., James and Others judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, para. 37), one can first conclude that the second sentence of Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 is not applicable.   With reference to the Court's reasoning in the Sporrong and Lönnroth case the second paragraph of the same Article is not applicable either.   What remains to be examined is thus Article 1 para. 1 first sentence.   This raises the question whether too heavy a burden was put on the applicant in relation to the general interest being pursued.           In the Government's opinion this is not the case.   According to the case-law of the Court and the Commission the Contracting States are given a wide discretion as far as the grounds for expropriations are concerned.   The underlying purpose of Chapter 2, Section 7 of the Expropriation Act is a legitimate one.   The applicant could have avoided the measures taken by the municipality by actions which had in fact been in his own favour.   It should be noted that, in order to avoid an expropriation, the owner merely has to keep his property in order.   It is obvious that this is in his own interest from all possible aspects and is not a detrimental obligation.   Instead the applicant has persistently refused to abide by the general obligations which are incumbent upon all owners of tenants' houses in Sweden. When, after a long period of negligence on the part of the applicant, the municipality decided to apply for an expropriation permit, the Government, which are responsible for the application of the Expropriation Act as far as the granting of expropriation permits is concerned, found that the requirements of the said provision were met. The Government question whether the Commission should go beyond that judgment and enter into the application of a Contracting State's national law (cf. inter alia case of James and Others, loc. cit.). Whether the applicant should have had the possibility of bringing this decision before a court is of course a separate question, which must be dealt with under Article 6 of the Convention.           The question remains whether an owner should be granted the possibility of having the issue reviewed, once an expropriation permit has been issued.   In the Government's view such a procedure could very well be applied.   But Swedish law does not foresee this possibility, and there is no obligation under the Convention to guarantee such a possibility.   The actual ground for expropriation differs from other expropriation provisions under Swedish law.   As previously emphasised, it is the owner himself who is responsible.   The expropriation permit is the ultimate reaction to a continuing or accelerating mismanagement of the property.   Thus, in the Government's opinion the Convention does not require that the applicant should have any remedies once "the point of no return" - the expropriation permit - has been passed.           The municipality can always apply for the withdrawal of an expropriation permit, if the applicant shows an inclination to restore the building.   This was, however, not done in the present case, since the municipality thought that such a measure should not be taken as long as there was a risk of continuous gross negligence.           The Government observe in this context that th