CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 8 octobre 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. 10842/84   Allan JACOBSSON   against   SWEDEN   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 8 October 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. 15-58) .............     4        A.   Particular circumstances of the case          (paras. 15-30) ....................................     4        B.   Relevant domestic law          (paras. 31-58) ....................................     7            a.      Legislation on construction and urban                 planning (paras. 31-33) ....................     7            b.      Plans and regulations for non-planned                 areas (paras. 34-41) .......................     7            c.      Building prohibitions (paras. 42-43) .......     9            d.      Application for a building permit                 (paras. 44-47) .............................    11            e.      Appeals against decisions (paras. 48-52) ...    12            f.      Formation of property units (paras. 53-54) .    13            g.      Supervisory functions and sanctions                 (paras. 55-58) .............................    13     III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES (paras. 59-126) ............     14        A.   The applicant          (paras. 59-92) ....................................     14            a.      General (paras. 59-60) .....................     14            b.      The facts (paras. 61-68) ...................     14              c.      Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (paras. 69-77) ...     17            d.      Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention                 (paras. 78-92) ...............................     19        B.   The Government          (paras. 93-126) .....................................     21            a.      The facts (paras. 93-97) .....................     21            b.      Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (paras. 98-111) ..     22            c.      Article 6 of the Convention                 (paras. 112-117) .............................     25            d.      Article 13 of the Convention                 (paras. 118-126) .............................     26     IV.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras. 127-159) ..............     28        A.   Points at issue          (para. 127) .........................................     28        B.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (paras. 128-139) ........     28        C.   Article 6 of the Convention          (paras. 140-153).....................................     31            a.      As to the applicability of Article 6                 para. 1 of the Convention (paras. 140-145) ...     31            b.      As to the compliance with Article 6                 para. 1 of the Convention                 (paras. 146-153) .............................     31        D.   Article 13 of the Convention (paras. 154-156) .......     33        E.   Articles 17 and 18 of the Convention          (paras. 157-158) ....................................     33        F.   Recapitulation          (para. 159) .........................................     33     Dissenting opinion of MM. Ermacora and Busuttil ..............     34     APPENDIX I      HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ....................     35     APPENDIX II     DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY .................     37   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.   Allan Jacobsson, is a Swedish citizen born in 1927 and resident at Rönninge.   He is a building engineer by profession.   He is represented before the Commission by Mr.   Hasse W. Tullberg, a lawyer.   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 a prohibition on construction on the applicant's property.   The prohibition has been in force since before the applicant bought the property in 1974.   The applicant complains that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has been violated, in particular as a result of the long time the prohibition on construction has been in force.   He also alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 1 as well as Article 13 of the Convention since he cannot have examined by a court whether the Building Act has been correctly applied in his case.   B.       The proceedings   5.       The application was introduced on 11 January 1984 and registered on 5 March 1984.   On 12 May 1984 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 20 July 1984 their observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of the application.   The time-limit for the observations was, at the request of the Government, extended until 1 September 1984.           The Government's observations were dated 30 August 1984 and the applicant's observations in reply, after an extension of the time limit to 23 November 1984, were submitted only on 11 February 1985.           On 10 October 1985 the Commission, after an examination of the admissibility of the application, decided to invite the parties to a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the application.           At the hearing, which was held on 15 April 1986, the applicant was represented by Mr.   Hasse W. Tullberg and by Mr.   Ulf Brunfelter as assisting lawyer.   The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. Hans Corell, and by Mrs.   Reidunn Laurén, Permanent Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Housing and Physical Planning, as adviser.   6.       On 15 April 1986 the Commission declared the application admissible.   7.       The parties were then invited to submit any additional observations on the merits of the application which they wished to make.           The Government submitted further observations on 2 September 1986, and the applicant submitted observations by letter of 28 September 1986.   These observations were transmitted to the other party for information.   8.       On 10 December 1986 and 9 May 1987 the Commission considered the state of proceedings of the case.   On 8 October 1987 the Commission deliberated on the merits of the case 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 12 October 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                           F. ERMACORA                           E. BUSUTTIL                           B. KIERNAN                           A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                           A. WEITZEL                           J. C. SOYER                           H. DANELIUS                           H. VANDENBERGHE                       Mrs G. H. THUNE                       Sir Basil HALL             The text of the Report was adopted by the Commission on 8 October 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.      In 1974, the applicant bought a property of 2.644 m2, Salem 23:1, situated in the centre of Rönninge in the municipality of Salem, a suburb about 20 kilometres south west of Stockholm.   On this property is situated a one family house in which the applicant lives. The property lies about 400 metres north west of Rönninge railway station.   Northeast of the property is a new suburb, Salemstaden.   16.      The applicant's property is situated in an area for which a subdivision plan (avstyckningsplan) has been in force since 1938. In addition, the property is subject to the regulations for non- planned areas (utomplansbestämmelser).   When the applicant bought the property it was also subject to a building prohibition under Sections 35 and 15 of the 1947 Building Act (byggnadslagen, "the 1947 Act") which had been in force since 1965 and to an area plan (områdesplan-översiktsplan) adopted in 1972 according to which the property was supposed to be used mainly as a public area, i.e. as a green space, for streets or car parks.   17.      The original building prohibition was issued by the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen) of the Stockholm County on 21 September 1965.   It applied to the central parts of Rönninge in the municipality of Salem and was valid for one year.           The building prohibition has subsequently been prolonged by the County Administrative Board upon application from the municipality for one or two years each time.   Building prohibitions pertaining to Salem 23:1 have been issued for the following periods:   (date of decision by the County Administrative Board)             (prohibition valid until)       21 September 1965                       21 September 1966     16 June 1967                            16 June 1968     14 June 1968                            14 June 1969     28 July 1969                             1 July 1970      4 September 1970                        4 September 1971     30 June 1971                             1 September 1972     28 July 1972                             1 September 1974     26 August 1974                           1 September 1976     11 August 1976                           1 September 1978     27 August 1979                          27 August 1980     27 March 1981                           27 March 1982      6 June 1983                             6 June 1984     11 July 1984                            11 July 1985     11 July 1985                            11 July 1987   18.      On 1 January 1974 the municipality of Salem was merged with the municipality of Botkyrka, but on 1 January 1983 Salem again became a separate municipality.   19.      At the request of the applicant the Building Committee (byggnadsnämnden) of Botkyrka decided on 28 January 1975 to inform the applicant inter alia that the Committee was not prepared to permit the division of the applicant's property into smaller plots.   In its decision the Committee referred inter alia to the fact that according to an area plan, which had been adopted by the Municipal Assembly (kommunfullmäktige) on 13 December 1972, the property mainly fell within an area supposed to be used for green space, streets, roads and car parks.   The Committee considered that the property could not be used for building detached houses if the plan were to be followed.   20.      The applicant turned to the County Administrative Board of the Stockholm County and requested that the municipality be ordered to adopt a town plan (stadsplan) for the central parts of Rönninge.   In an opinion of 31 March 1976 the Board noted that only the Government were competent to make the order requested.   It further stated that the planning procedure was underway to such an extent that the Board did not find it justified that an order be given to enforce a town plan.   21.      The applicant also complained to the Parliamentary Ombudsman (justitieombudsmannen, JO) who in a letter of 25 February 1976 replied that he was well aware of the problems which could arise as a result of lengthy building prohibitions.   He referred to a previous decision he had rendered and to the preparatory works for new legislation which was being carried out.   However, he found no reason to take any other measures as a result of the applicant's complaint.   22.      On 15 January 1980 the Building Committee, upon inquiry from the applicant, replied that it was not prepared to grant the applicant an exemption from the building prohibition or a building permit for the purpose of building a one family house and a garage on the property.   The applicant, arguing that the building prohibition was not valid, appealed to the County Administrative Board, which by a decision on 25 April 1980 rejected the appeal.   The County Administrative Board stated in its decision that it interpreted the decision of the Building Committee as a refusal to grant exemption from the building prohibition.   It went on:   "According to a master plan adopted on 28 June 1979 by the Municipal Assembly and relating to part of the municipality of Botkyrka the property is supposed to be used for building blocks of flats of more than two storeys.   This use of the main part of the property has also been indicated in an area plan of 1972 for the centre of Rönninge.   In the opinion of the County Administrative Board the proposed buildings may be contrary to the aim of the prevailing building prohibition and hinder future town planning, where the question of using the property for other purposes can arise as indicated above.   In view of what has been said above and since there are no special reasons to accept the proposed buildings and to go against the Building Committee, being the primarily responsible organ for the development of the urbanisation, the County Administrative Board rejects the appeal."   23.      On 6 June 1983 the County Administrative Board decided to issue a further building prohibition for the area in question. In its decision the Board noted inter alia that the newly created municipality (cf. para. 18) should have some time to determine its position in respect of the planning of Rönninge.   It also stated that an application for a further building prohibition would have to be founded on a time-schedule for the amendments of the plan or on any other way of terminating the prohibition.           The applicant appealed against this decision to the Government. He questioned inter alia whether the prolonged building prohibitions were legal.   On 15 December 1983 the Government rejected the appeal.   24.      In April 1983 the Building Committee of the municipality of Salem submitted a request to the County Administrative Board that the Board should make an order under Section 168 of the 1947 Act to the effect that the right to construct according to the subdivision plan of 1938 be revoked.   The applicant stated in an opinion to the Board that he thought that the Committee's request was unjustified since the plan would cease to be valid when the town plan which had been announced during 20 years would be confirmed.           In its decision of 23 March 1984 the County Administrative Board stated inter alia as follows:   "The long duration of the (building) prohibition depends to a large extent on changes in the objectives of the planning as a result inter alia of the changes of municipality adherence which has occurred twice during the time of prohibition ... .   The Board considers that the prevailing building prohibition gives the municipality sufficient room in view of the coming town planning.   Against the objections from owners of certain properties, the Board finds that a revocation (of the subdivision plan) is not justified."   25.      On 23 February 1984 the Municipal Assembly adopted a building programme according to which the area in which the applicant's property is situated should be used for the construction of multi-family houses in 1988.   On 13 February 1984 the Municipal Board (kommunstyrelsen) adopted an area programme which also foresees multi-family houses for the area in question.   At the same time the Board stated that the planning should be given priority.   26.      On 11 July 1984 the County Administrative Board issued a further building prohibition under Section 35 of the 1947 Act for the area in question for a maximum period of one year.   From the decision it appears that the municipality had submitted a document according to which work was to be carried out during 1984 for the purposes of establishing certain plans.   27.      The applicant appealed to the Government, which on 8 November 1984 rejected the appeal referring to the on-going planning work.   28.      On 12 June 1984 the Building Committee with reference to a building prohibition under Section 35 of the Building Act stated in an advance opinion (förhandsbesked) that it would not be prepared to grant the applicant a building permit.   The applicant appealed on the basis that the building prohibition referred to had ceased to be effective on 6 June 1984.   In a new decision of 21 August 1984, the Building Committee conceded that a mistake had been made, and, therefore, quashed its decision of 12 June 1984 and took a new decision of similar contents since a new building prohibition was valid as from 11 July 1984.   Subsequently the County Administrative Board dealt with the applicant's appeal against the decision of the Building Committee of 12 June 1984.   The Board decided to quash the Building Committee's decision of 21 August 1984 and to reject the appeal against the decision of 12 June referring to the fact that a building prohibition was in force when the Board examined the case. The applicant appealed against this decision to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) of Stockholm and to the Government.   On 24 April 1986 the Government quashed the Board's decision, holding that the Committee's opinion was not a binding decision and, accordingly, could not as such be subject to an appeal.   No decision has yet been taken by the Administrative Court of Appeal.   29.      On 11 July 1985 the County Administrative Board again prolonged the building prohibition, this time until 11 July 1987.   30.      On 20 March 1986 the Municipal Assembly adopted an area plan for the area in question.   According to the Government this is the last step of the preparatory work in the making of a town plan.     B.       Relevant domestic law and practice   a.       Legislation on construction and urban planning   31.      A property owner's rights to erect buildings on his property were up to 1 July 1987 regulated in the 1947 Building Act ("the 1947 Act") and the 1959 Building Ordinance (byggnadsstadgan, "the 1959 Ordinance").   32.      Section 1 of the 1947 Act provides that construction on property requires a building permit to the extent laid down by the Government.   Such rules are to be found in Section 54 of the 1959 Ordinance.   A permit is required for all new constructions, except for the construction of certain buildings for public use, or smaller additions to existing residences and farms or smaller houses on such estates.   33.      Section 5 of the 1947 Act calls for an examination of whether the property is suitable from a general point of view for building purposes.   Such an examination shall be made by planning procedure in accordance with the 1947 Act, except for areas classified as non-urban (glesbebyggelse) or as "urban developments on a smaller scale" (tätbebyggelse av mindre omfattning).   For the latter categories, the required examination may be made when examining an application for a building permit.   b.       Plans and regulations for non-planned areas   34.      Plans should take due consideration of public as well as individual interests.   35.      A master plan (generalplan) encompasses the major guidelines within a municipality or a part of a municipality.   A town plan (stadsplan) or a building plan (byggnadsplan) contains more detailed regulations on the development of the area.   For areas not regulated by town or building plans, the construction activities are regulated by the regulations for non-planned areas (utomplansbestämmelser) in the 1959 Ordinance.   The developments in areas covered only by older, subdivision plans (avstyckningsplaner) are governed by these plans as well as by regulations for non-planned areas.   36.      A master plan is to be drawn up by the municipality when necessary for the guidance of further detailed planning regarding the structuring and developing of the community.   At the request of the municipality, the master plan may be confirmed (fastställd) by the County Administrative Board.   Complete master plans are seldom deemed necessary.   Instead, municipalities tend to meet their planning needs by using simpler, less detailed plans, usually described as area plans (områdesplaner).   Such plans are not governed by law.           The Government may decide that a master plan must be prepared, when needed to further a development which is deemed urgent in the national interest.           A master plan cannot cover an area which is already covered by a town or a building plan.   37.      A town plan is to be drawn up by the municipality, when necessary as a result of the urbanisation of the community, in order to regulate constructions.   Such a plan must contain information about the borders of blocks (byggnadskvarter), of public areas (allmänna platser), and of special zones, such as railway areas, harbours, recreational (sports) areas, etc.   The town plan must also contain the further provisions deemed necessary regarding constructions in various areas, or regarding the use of properties in these areas.   The 1959 Ordinance mentions inter alia specific use of blocks, prohibitions against construction on part of a block, construction methods to be used, the number of permitted buildings on a certain site (tomt) and the permitted surface area, location, height, and the number of flats of a building.           A town plan must be confirmed by the County Administrative Board in order to become valid.           Should a municipality, although there is need to work out a town plan, fail to issue one, the Government may order the municipality to present such a plan within a fixed time-limit for the Government's approval.           A town plan gives the municipality a right to redeem areas necessary for public use.   The redemption value is decided by the Real Estate Court (fastighetsdomstolen), and shall be assessed according to the rules laid down in the Expropriation Act (expropriationslagen).   38.      If an area has become densely populated or if such a situation is expected to emerge in the area, but this situation does not call for a town plan, a building plan must be issued by the municipality, to the extent necessary for the regulation of the development of the area. A building plan is largely the same as a town plan, but does not have as far-reaching legal consequences.   A building plan must also be validated through a confirmation by the County Administrative Board, which may issue such a plan if the municipality has failed to produce one.   39.      A subdivision plan is an old type of plan which was supposed to be abolished and, where necessary, replaced by building or town plans when the 1947 Act was introduced.           A subdivision plan was supposed to regulate the situation of roads and other public places in for instance recreational areas. Such a plan only sets out the borders between blocks and land which is intended for public use and should be free from buildings.   The plan does not regulate how the blocks should be built.           When the 1947 Act was introduced it was considered inappropriate to abolish the regulations inherent in a subdivision plan until such plans had been replaced by other plans.   A transitional rule was therefore adopted according to which such plans were to be regarded as building plans in certain respects under the 1947 Act.   40.      All four categories of plans may be cancelled by decision of the County Administrative Board.   Such a decision must take the interests of property owners into consideration.   41.      Regulations for non-planned areas inter alia prohibit constructions of new buildings, unless suitable in the general interest.   The same examination regarding general suitability is made, whether as part of the planning procedure or as part of the processing of an application for a building permit for an area not covered by town or building plans.   c.       Building prohibitions   42.      Under Section 56 of the 1959 Ordinance, the authorities may not grant permits for new buildings, which would result in urban development (tätbebyggelse) within an area which is not covered by a town plan or a building plan.   The concept of "urban development" is defined in Section 6 of the 1947 Act as such concentrated building as would immediately or in the near future call for special installations for common needs (e.g. water supply, sewage systems and other utilities).   Section 56 thus provides for a general building prohibition for certain areas.   This prohibition has been applied in an extensive way.           Areas governed by subdivision plans are not subject to the building prohibition under Section 56 of the 1959 Ordinance in urbanised areas.   The County Administrative Board may, however, order under Section 168 of the 1947 Act that areas covered by subdivision plans shall also be covered by this prohibition.   43.      The building prohibition under Section 56 of the 1959 Ordinance in urbanised areas does not apply to all kinds of construction.   When a proposal for a town plan has been suggested for a certain area, it may become important also to prevent construction of smaller houses or changes to a house, which would normally not require any public supply of utilities.   Furthermore, the prohibition does not automatically extend to areas covered by subdivision plans. A town plan has to be designed according to the existing situation. From many points of view, changes in this situation occurring during the planning procedure may be inconvenient.   Therefore, on an application by a municipality, the County Administrative Board may under Section 35 of the 1947 Act issue a prohibition against all construction of new buildings, or against measures equivalent to such constructions, pending the preparation of a town plan for the area. Such a building prohibition is valid for one year at most but may be prolonged for two years at a time.   The prohibition is cancelled and replaced by another prohibition when the municipality has adopted a proposal for a town plan.   The new prohibition is automatically cancelled when the town plan has been confirmed.   None of these prohibitions, however, are absolute, since exemptions may be granted. However, exemptions will not be granted, where the planning procedure would be obstructed by the intended construction.           Section 35 of the 1947 Act reads as follows:   (Swedish)   "Har beslut fattats eller fråga väckts om antagande eller ändring av stadsplan för visst område, skall angående förbud mot nybyggnad inom området vad i 14 och 15 §§ stadgas äga motsvarande tillämpning."     (English translation)   "When a decision has been taken or the question has been raised as to the adoption or amendment of a town plan for a certain area, the provisions of Sections 14 and 15 shall apply in respect of prohibitions against construction within the area."           Section 14 reads as follows:   (Swedish)   "Hava kommunfullmäktige beslutat göra framställning om fastställelse av generalplan beträffande visst område eller ändring av fastställd generalplan, må nybyggnad, innan framställningen prövats, ej företagas inom område som avses med denna; dock må länsstyrelsen eller, enligt av regeringen meddelade föreskrifter, byggnadsnämnd medgiva undantag såvitt generalplanens genomförande icke försvåras."   (English translation)   "When the municipal assembly has decided to apply for a confirmation of a master plan concerning a specific area or an amendment of a confirmed master plan, new construction may not take place within the area before the application has been examined.   However, the County Administrative Board or, as the Government may have ordered, the Building Committee may grant exemption insofar as the enforcement of the master plan is not impaired."           Section 15 reads as follows:   (Swedish)   "Är fråga väckt om framställning angående fastställelse av generalplan beträffande visst område eller ändring av fastställd generalplan, äger länsstyrelsen på framställning av kommunen förordna, att nybyggnad inom området icke må företagas.   Sådant förordnande gäller intill dess kommun- fullmäktige beslutat i frågan, dock ej längre än ett år. Där så erfordras äger länsstyrelsen på framställning av kommunen förlänga förbudets giltighetstid med högst två år i sänder.   Från förbud som i första stycket sägs må undantag medgivas av länsstyrelsen eller, enligt av regeringen meddelade föreskrifter, av byggnadsnämnd."   (English translation)   "When the question is raised of an application for a confirmation of a master plan concerning a specific area or an amendment of a confirmed master plan, the County Administrative Board may, at the request of the municipality, order that new construction may not take place in the area.   Such an order is valid until the Municipal Assembly has decided on the question, but not for a longer period than one year.   Where necessary the County Administrative Board may, at the request of the municipality, prolong the validity of the prohibition by a maximum of two years each time.   Exemptions from the prohibition referred to in the first paragraph may be granted by the County Administrative Board or, as the Government may have ordered, by the Building Committee."     d.       Application for a building permit   44.      A person, who wants to erect a building, for which a permit is required, must file an application with the local Building Committee. An application coming under any of the above building prohibitions is in practice considered as including also an application for exemption from the prohibition in question.   The applicant may, on the other hand, choose to apply for an exemption only, in order to apply for a permit when the matter of exemption has been resolved.   45.      The examination of an application for a building permit involves ascertaining that the intended building will not run counter to any confirmed plan, or, as the case may be, to the regulations of non-planned areas, or to a building prohibition, and that it satisifies technical demands on construction.   In the absence of such obstacles, a permit should be granted.   46.      Should the intended construction require exemptions of any kind, the Building Committee must also take a decision on this matter. In case the Committee lacks legal competence to do so, it normally would refer the application as regards exemption to the County Administrative Board, suspending its decision on the permit issue, pending the outcome of the exemption issue.   47.      It is a practice among property owners to request an advance opinion regarding a certain type of construction on a specified unit of property.   A negative reply from the Building Committee is normally regarded as a rejection of an application for exemption and may be appealed by the applicant.   e.       Appeals against decisions   48.      Decisions by the Building Committee to refuse building permits and to refuse exemptions from building prohibitions may be appealed to the County Administrative Board.   49.      A decision by the County Administrative Board to reject an appeal against the Building Committee's decision not to grant an exemption from a building prohibition may be appealed to the Government.   However, an appeal against a decision of the Board to reject an appeal regarding an application for a building permit shall be lodged with the Administrative Court of Appeal.   A decision by the Administrative Court of Appeal may be appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten), which may refuse to grant leave to appeal.   50.      When a decision by the County Administrative Board has resolved both issues (the building permit and the exemption from the building prohibition) it may be appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal. If the court should find that an exemption is not required, the matter will subsequently be processed as a case relating only to the question of a building permit.   Otherwise the Administrative Court of Appeal will transfer the case to the Government for a decision.   The court also makes a statement to the Government on the permit issue.   51.      There are no limits to the number of times a property owner may apply for building permits or exemptions from a building prohibition.   The authorities are obliged to examine the matter each time they are seized with an application.   52.      A decision by the County Administrative Board to issue a building prohibition or, as the first instance, to refuse an exemption from a building prohibition may be appealed to the Government.           Moreover, the confirmation of town and building plans by the County Administrative Board may be appealed to the Government by the property owners concerned.   The owners may also appeal against a decision to refuse confirmation of an adopted proposal for a plan. However, they cannot formally require a plan to be prepared by the municipality or the County Administrative Board, nor can they demand an injunction by the Government, ordering a municipality to prepare a proposal for a town plan.   f.       Formation of property units   53.      Divisions of units of property are resolved by the Property Formation Agencies (fastighetsbildningsmyndigheterna).   New units are to be designed in such a way as to make all units concerned permanently suitable for their purpose with regard to their location, size, and other conditions.   Within town planned areas or areas subject to subdivision plans, a division must be made in accordance with the plan.   Where other regulations apply to the development of land, e.g. a building prohibition, the division has to be carried out so as not to obstruct the purpose of the prohibition.   If there are no plans for the area, divisions with a view to construction may not be made, if they were to impede appropriate use of the area, to result in inappropriate development or to obstruct appropriate planning for the area.   54.      Decisions by the Property Formation Agencies may be appealed to the Real Estate Courts (fastighetsdomstolarna), whose decisions in turn may be appealed to the Court of Appeal (hovrätten), and from there to the Supreme Court (högsta domstolen).   g.       Supervisory functions and sanctions   55.      The County Administrative Board supervises planning and construction activities - including those of the Building Committees - within the county.   The National Board of Physical Planning and Building (planverket), which is a Government Agency, supervises the same fields on the national level.   56.      The Parliamentary Ombudsmen supervise, on behalf of the Parliament, inter alia, the County Administrative Boards, and the Building Committees, to ensure that they act according to laws and statutes.   The same supervision is, on behalf of the Government, carried out by the Chancellor of Justice (justitiekanslern).   57.      None of these supervisory bodies may alter a decision by an authority.   The County Administrative Boards may, however, intervene by issuing prohibitions and injunctions.   Otherwise, a supervisory body may only point to committed errors, e.g. by referring a matter to the district prosecutor to act upon as he sees fit.   58.      Those who, in the course of their official duties, deliberately or through gross negligence disregard their obligations, as laid down in laws and statutes, may be fined or sentenced to prison by a court under Chapter 20 of the Penal Code (brottsbalken).   The Government and the municipalities are under certain conditions liable for damages, inter alia, for property damage, caused by fault or negligence in the exercise of public authority.   Litigations are tried by the general courts.   III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES   A.       The applicant   a.       General   59.      The case which the applicant submits to the Commission relates first to the impossibility for the applicant to have his case considered regarding questions of lawfulness and compatibility with the Convention, by a domestic court entitled to examine the situation and all aspects of the law under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and, secondly, to the duration of the building prohibitions in view of Articles 17 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   60.      For the sake of clarity, the applicant points out that he has never complained, and is not complaining, of the way planning is carried out, as long as it is performed in adherence to Swedish law and in compliance with statutory requirements, nor is he complaining of the fact that planning takes place and that there are restrictions as to the control of the use of property.   However, the applicant submits that the instruments for the control of the use of property have been misused in contravention of Swedish law and in a way that is also contravening Articles 6, 13, 17 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   b.       The facts   61.      The applicant's property is situated within an area included in a subdivision plan from 1938.   The regulations for non-planned areas are applicable to it.   These regulations are applicable to land which is not developed sufficiently and cannot be expected to be so in a near future but which can be expected eventually to be developed to a consider