CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 8 mars 1988

.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 }                            AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                          Application No. 11309/84                        by Mats JACOBSSON                        against Sweden             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 8 March 1988, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   G. SPERDUTI                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER                   J. CAMPINOS                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY                Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 5 August 1984 by Mats Jacobsson against Sweden and registered on 17 December 1984 under file No. 11309/84;             Having regard to:     -      the report provided in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of         the Commission;     -      the Commission's decision of 8 October 1985 to declare the         application inadmissible on the basis that the applicant had         not shown that he had complied with the six months rule laid         down in Article 26 of the Convention;     -      the Commission's decision of 13 October 1986, on the basis of         new information, to re-open the proceedings and to communicate         the application to the respondent Government for written         observations on the admissibility and merits;     -      the Government's observations dated 15 January 1987;     -      the applicant's observations dated 9 April 1987;     -      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 1953 and resident in Stockholm.   He is a journalist by profession.   Before the Commission, the applicant is represented by Mr.   Hasse W. Tullberg, a lawyer.           The particular facts of the case           Since 1973 the applicant has owned a property, Tullinge 17:289 (previously Stg 3594) with an area of 2,079 m2 in the municipality of Botkyrka.   On the property there is a small house.           At the time the applicant acquired the property in 1973 the area was subject to a building plan drawn up in 1938.   A principal rule according to that building plan was that no plot should be less than 1500 m2 in area.   However, a plot with a smaller area, although no less than 1000 m2, could be permitted within an area where sewage and water-supply systems in accordance with a plan approved by the local health authorities had been installed before the buildings were erected or in connection therewith.           Furthermore, after 4 June 1954, except for some short periods, there has been a building prohibition under Section 109 of the Building Act (byggnadslagen) in that part of the planning area in which the property is located, pending an amendment of the building plan in force.   After 4 June 1954 construction was prohibited in the area also under Section 110 of the Building Act pending the construction of adequate roads, water-supply and sewage systems.           Since 1973 there has been a building prohibition pursuant to Section 109 of the Building Act on the applicant's property according to decisions of the Stockholm County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen) of 28 July 1972, 20 August 1974, 31 August 1976, 11 January 1979, 11 January 1980, 31 March 1981 and 31 August 1982. These decisions have been valid during the periods up to and including 1 September 1978, 11 January 1979 - 11 January 1981, 31 March 1981 - 31 March 1982 and 31 August 1982 - 31 August 1983.   Appeals were lodged with the Government against the County Administrative Board's decisions of 20 August 1974 and 31 August 1982.   The Government rejected the appeals on 9 October 1975 and 19 May 1983, respectively.           In 1975 the applicant complained about the inconveniences resulting from the sewage system in the area.   As a result the County Administrative Board ordered that the municipality should, before the end of 1982, install sewage pipes in the area where the applicant's property is situated.           On 16 December 1982 the Municipal Council (kommunfullmäktige) adopted a proposal for amendments to the building plan for the area in which the applicant's property is situated.           The applicant objected to the proposed building plan.   The amendments were, in the applicant's submissions, mainly unjustified restrictions as regards construction and contained a provision that building plots must be at least 1,500 m2.   The previous building plan allowed for building plots of at least 1,500 m2, and if certain conditions relating to the water and sewage system were fulfilled, 1,000 m2.   The applicant alleged that the result of the amendments was that properties, including his own, which previously had two building rights were deprived of one of them.   However, the building plan was confirmed by the County Administrative Board on 4 July 1983 pursuant to Section 108 of the Building Act.   In its decision the Board inter alia gave the following reasons:   "The aim of the plan pursuant to the description is to regulate the conditions for the properties affected by the development of the water and sewage system until the town plan can be made on the basis of the ongoing area plan.   Therefore there is a general interest not to prejudice the forthcoming planning.   The present low utilisation of the land, controlled with regard to location, must be seen as a consequence of this.   The County Administrative Board finds the municipality's assessment in this regard to be acceptable.   Nor can a low degree of exploitation as such be considered to contravene the Building Act.   As regards the building right the County Administrative Board observes the following: Stg 3594 comprises 2,079 m2. The existing plan from 1938 allows for building plots of at least 1,500 m2.   Where the property is situated in an area where water and sewage pipes have been installed before or in connection with the construction in accordance with an approved plan of the Health Care Board, (hälsovårdsnämnd), it is permitted to reduce the area of the building plots, but not to less than 1000 m2.   This condition must presuppose some sort of private initiative for a common installation for several properties in order to construct on them.   Since the building prohibition was issued under Section 110 of the Building Act in 1954 no measures have been taken by the property owners with a view to arranging any water and sewage installations.   The water and sewage pipes which have now been installed have been so only in order to remedy the sanitary inconveniences which have arisen in the area despite large building plots.   The conditions in the plan, according to which building plots of less than 1,500 m2 may be permitted, cannot therefore be considered to be fulfilled.   The County Administrative Board therefore finds that there is no obvious right to divide Stg 3594 according to the plan in force.   In view of this and having regard to the general interest of not prejudging the forthcoming town planning the County Administrative Board considers that the decision of the municipality not to agree to (the applicant's) claim for further building rights is acceptable."           The applicant appealed to the Government, which on 19 January 1984 amended the decision of the County Administrative Board so as to avoid the consequence that any new construction on the applicant's property would necessitate the demolition of the existing house on the property.   In other respects the appeal was rejected.           The applicant then applied to the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten) for re-opening of the matter.   This application was rejected in a decision of 5 June 1984.           The applicant states that his intention has always been to divide his property and to build at least one more detached house.   He also intends to enlarge the existing building.   The applicant's request for division of the property has been rejected by the Building Committee (byggnadsnämnden) which has a veto before the Property Formation Authority (fastighetsbildningsmyndigheten).           Legislation on construction and urban planning           A property owner's rights to erect buildings on his property are regulated in the 1947 Building Act ("the 1947 Act") and the 1959 Building Ordinance (byggnadsstadgan, "the 1959 Ordinance").           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.           Section 5 of the Act also 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.           Plans and regulations for non-planned areas           Plans should take due consideration of public as well as individual interests.           A master plan (generalplan) encompasses the major guidelines within a community or a part of a community.   A town plan (stadsplan) or a building plan (byggnadsplan) contains more detailed regulations on the development of the area.   For areas not regulated by such plans, construction activities are regulated by the Ordinance.           The developments in areas covered only by older subdivision plans (avstyckningsplaner) are governed by these plans as well as regulations for non-planned areas (utomplansbestämmelser).           A master plan is to be drawn up by the municipality when necessary for the guidance of further detailed planning regarding the structuring and development 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.           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 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 a 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).           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.           Subdivision plans only describe borders of blocks and land intended for public use.           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.           Regulations for non-planned areas inter alia prohibit constructions of new buildings, unless suitable for general purposes. 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.           Building prohibitions           Under Section 56 of the Building Ordinance, the authorities may not grant permits for new buildings, which would result in an 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 exempted on a general basis from the building prohibition in urbanised areas.   The County Administrative Board may, however, also include areas covered by sub-division plans under this prohibition.           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 to prevent construction even 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 are very inconvenient.   Therefore, on an application by the local community, the County Administrative Board may issue a prohibition against all construction of new buildings, or against measures equivalent to such constructions, pending the emergence of a town plan for the area.   Such a prohibition is valid for one year only but may be prolonged for two years at a time.   The prohibition is annulled 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, but exemptions may be granted.   However, exemptions will not be granted, where the planning procedure would be obstructed by the intended construction.           Formation of property units           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 in view of 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.           Decisions and review of decisions           A person, who wants to erect a building, for which a permit is required, must file an application with the Building Committee.   An application coming under any of the above 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 his permit when the matter of exemption has been resolved.           The examination of an application for a 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.           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 exception issue.           A widely used practice among property owners is to request an "advance opinion" (förhandsbesked) regarding a certain type of construction on a specified unit of property.   A negative reply from the Building Committee is regarded as a rejection of an application for exemption, provided the execution of the matter and the substance of the decision justify such an interpretation. The reason is that this will give the applicant the right of appeal against statements by the Committee which in reality means that no exemption is granted.           Decisions by the Building Committee to refuse building permits and exemptions may be appealed to the County Administrative Board.           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, as may a decision by the Board to reject an appeal against the Building Committee's decision not to grant an exemption.   A decision of the County Administrative Board to reject an appeal regarding an application for a building permit is, however, appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal.   Decisions by the Administrative Court of Appeal may be appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten), which may refuse to grant leave to appeal.           When a decision by the County Administrative Board has resolved both issues (the permit and the exemption) it may be appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal.   If this court should come to the conclusion that an exemption is not required, the matter will subsequently be processed as a matter relating only to the question of a building permit.   Otherwise the Administrative Court of Appeal will transfer the matter to the Government for a decision.   The Court also makes a statement to the Government on the permit issue.           A special rule applies when an application for a permit has been denied for the reason only that it does not meet the general requirement of suitability laid down in the regulations for non-planned areas.   Such a denial by the County Administrative Board may only be appealed to the Government.   Should a question concerning a building permit, on appeal to the Administrative Court of Appeal, include this issue of suitability, the Court is to refer the matter, together with a statement of its own, to the Government.           There are no limits to the number of times a property owner may apply for permits or exemptions.   The authorities are obliged to examine the matter in full each time they are seized with an application.           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.           Decisions by the Property Formation Agencies may be appealed to the Real Estate Courts, whose decisions in turn may be appealed to the Court of Appeal (hovrätten), and from there to the Supreme Court (högsta domstolen).           Supervisory functions           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.           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).           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.           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 exercising public authority.   Litigation is conducted before the general courts.     COMPLAINTS   1.       The applicant complains that his right to use his property according to the old plan has been revoked in the new plan without any general interest having been substantiated.   Under the old plan he had two building rights and now he only has one after the amendment. Accordingly, the applicant alleges a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   2.       The applicant alleges a breach of Article 6 of the Convention since his rights under the plan cannot be examined at an impartial and public court hearing.   3.       The applicant also alleges a violation of Article 13 of the Convention since there exists no "effective" remedy.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 5 August 1984 and registered on 17 December 1984.   It was declared inadmissible on 8 October 1985 since the applicant had not shown that he had complied with the six months rule laid down in Article 26 of the Convention.           On 13 October 1986 the Commission, on the basis of new information, decided to re-open the proceedings and to communicate the application to the respondent Government for written observations on the admissibility and merits limited to the alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention.           The Government's observations were dated 15 January 1987 and the applicant's observations in reply were dated 9 April 1987.     SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES           A. The Government           1.   The Swedish legislation relevant to the application           Since the complaints in this case concern the consequences for the applicant of an adopted building plan the following information on the provisions regarding building plans (also known as local plans) may be pertinent.           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, the municipality must see to it that a building plan is drawn up, to the extent necessary for the regulations of the planning of the area (Section 107 of the Building Act).           A building plan - like a town plan - must delineate and state the limits of the areas intended to be used for various purposes in the plan, such as land intended for building purposes, as well as roads and other public places.   If special regulations relating to the development or the use of the areas concerned are required, such regulations must also be incorporated in the plan.   Such planning regulations can relate to the use of building land for certain purposes, a ban on the development of a certain part of the building land, the number of buildings on a certain site, the size of the site, the surface area of the building, its height and the number of storeys, etc.           A building plan must be approved by the Municipal Council. The matter can also be delegated to the Municipal Building Committee. Before gaining legal force, decisions of approval must be confirmed by the County Administrative Board.   An owner of land affected by a County Administrative Board decision approving a building plan has a right of appeal against the Board's decision to the Government.           If a municipality fails to take the necessary steps to draw up a building plan for an area where it is needed, the County Administrative Board can have such a plan drawn up and approved for the area in question (Section 108 of the Building Act).           If the question has been raised of the drawing up of a building plan for a certain area or of such a plan being altered, the County Administrative Board - if the municipality so requests - may prohibit new constructions in the area.   Such a building prohibition may be issued for, at most, one year but can be extended by the County Administrative Board for, at most, two years at a time (Section 109 of the Building Act).   A County Administrative Board's decision on the building prohibition or on the extension of such a prohibition can be appealed to the Government.           According to Section 110 para. 1 of the Building Act, a new construction may not take place in conflict with a building plan.   Under the second paragraph of that Section, a County Administrative Board can prescribe that new constructions in an area covered by a building plan may not take place without the Board's permission before adequate roads, water-supplies and sewage systems have been provided.           Exemptions may be granted in individual cases from the said building prohibitions.   Such a decision is taken by the County Administrative Board or by the Building Committee in the municipality if the County Administrative Board has delegated the competence to grant exemptions to that Committee.   Nearly all municipalities have such authorisation.           A condition for the granting of an exemption from a building prohibition in conflict with a building plan is that the Building Committee approves the exemption from the plan.   This means that the municipality has a right of veto in respect of exemptions from a building plan.           It is for the owners of the land to see to it that roads and other communal amenities are completed within an area covered by a building plan.           A building plan or a town plan can be altered if required. According to Section 23 of the Building Ordinance, the rules concerning the adoption and confirmation of town plans and building plans shall, in principle, also apply to the alteration or withdrawal of such plans.   There are, however, no rules that indicate the material conditions determining how alteration or confirmation is to be decided.   Nor are there any regulations as to compensation relevant to those situations.           When considering whether the owner's right to build according to a plan may be limited or withdrawn when altering the plan, the authorities concerned must weigh the public interest of such an alteration against the infringement of the private interest which the decision can give rise to (Section 4 of the Building Act and Section 9 of the Building Ordinance).           In several rulings the Government have approved suggested alterations to plans that have involved constraints according to earlier plans.   This has also been done against the opinion of the land-owners concerned.   In most cases it has been a matter of limiting the maximum building area permitted so as to prevent people from taking up permanent residence in an area intended for holiday cottages.   A condition for approving these constraints has been that the property concerned should not be diminished in value to any appreciable extent.           2.   The facts           The applicant's property is situated at Katrinebergsvägen in what is known as Tullinge Villastad.   This is a suburb of Stockholm, in the municipality of Botkyrka, situated some 20 km south of Stockholm.   Many of those living in this area work in Stockholm or in its immediate surroundings.           The municipalities south of Stockholm may be described as small, old communities which have developed in farming districts and which in the last decades have been affected by the sudden increase of population in Stockholm.   During the first half of the 20th century buildings for recreational purposes were erected rather haphazardly in large areas of these municipalities.   These dwellings were preferably situated in hilly forested areas.   Around the old communities areas with sparse and simple one family houses have emerged.           The accelerated population increase in the metropolitan area of Stockholm paired with the lack of attractive housing in the city itself has resulted - during the last decades - in a change of the old communities into urbanised areas with rather a mixed profile, and in an extended use of summer resorts for permanent residence.   In particular, the conversion of summer houses has incurred grave problems for the municipalities to meet the demands for communication, water and sewage facilities, schools, etc.   The areas in question are widespread, and the resources have not sufficed for urban planning at a desirable pace.           This planning is technically of a complex nature, because it must be adjusted to the existing buildings in the area in question. It is also difficult to administer, due to the high number of property owners concerned, owners who often hold quite opposite opinions on planning issues.   The conditions for planning are uncertain, taking into account inter alia the difficulties with the coordination of inter-urban communication.   Above all, road and utility constructions are very expensive because of the character of the terrain and the widely dispersed residences, which offer less adequate resources than would normally exist for urban development.           All this has resulted in the decisions to prohibit constructions of new buildings with regard to planning, which is necessary to put a stop to the development, often having been of long duration.           On the applicant's property there is a holiday cottage with an area of 28 m2 which was erected in 1954.           In a decision of 31 August 1976 the County Administrative Board refused to grant a request from the applicant that the County Administrative Board should draw up a new building plan for the Tullinge Villastad area by virtue of Section 108 of the Building Act.           After the applicant, amongst others, had complained of sanitary inconvenience due to sewer discharge in the area in which Tullinge 17:289 is situated, the County Administrative Board, in a decision of 9 June 1981, instructed Botkyrka municipality to submit to the County Administrative Board a confirmed time schedule for the extension of the sewage systems within, amongst others, the area in which the applicant's property is situated.   According to the decision, extension of the sewage system was to be completed before the end of 1982 for the area comprising Katrinebergsvägen.           On 16 December 1982 the Municipal Council of Botkyrka adopted a draft proposal for the alteration of the building plan for the area in which the applicant's property is situated.   The draft plan meant amongst other things that a plot, irrespective of whether or not water-supply and sewage systems had been constructed, should not be given an area less than 1500 m2.   As regards the applicant's property, the draft proposal also meant that some parts of the property, including the part where the existing residential building stands, were not to be built upon.           The applicant objected against the draft plan.   He argued, among other things, that his rights had been overruled because his "building right" permitted according to the earlier plan would be reduced.   On 4 July 1984 the draft plan was confirmed by the County Administrative Board.           On 19 January 1984 the Government modified the County Administrative Board's decision but only to the extent that the area of the applicant's property, on which the residential building stands, was exempted from confirmation.   The Government found that the fact that the area had been marked as land not to be built upon in the draft plan meant that construction measures were not permitted on the property unless the residential building was demolished and that this was not acceptable in the case.   The Government did not see any reason to make any other amendments to the draft plans confirmed by the County Administrative Board.           In answer to a request by the applicant the Building Committee in Botkyrka stated on 6 August 1974 that the Committee was not prepared to grant an exemption from the building prohibition pursuant to Sections 109 and 110 of the Building Act for an extension of the existing residential building on the applicant's property to a total area of 80 m2.           In November 1974 the applicant inquired at the Building Committee whether there was a possibility of dividing his property into four plots for single-unit dwellings.   The Building Committee decided on 25 March 1975 to inform the applicant that, at that time, it was not prepared to recommend a division of the property, since an inquiry into suitable ways of installing water supply and sewage systems in the area was in progress and a division of the property could jeopardise future detailed local planning.           In February 1976 the applicant applied for a building permit for conversion and extension of the residential building on the property, which would mean that the area occupied by building would increase from 28 m2 to 92 m2.   The Building Committee decided on 11 May 1976 not to grant an exemption from the building prohibition pursuant to Sections 109 and 110 of the Building Act and therefore to reject the application for a building permit.   The Building Committee stated that the reason for its decision was that this construction could obstruct the execution of a future new detailed local plan and that the property at that time could not be connected to the municipal water-supply and sewage system.   The County Administrative Board rejected the appeal, lodged by the applicant against the Building Committee's decision.   The applicant made an appeal to the Government which in a decision of 13 September 1979 did not grant the appeal.           On 10 November 1981 the Building Committee decided to inform the applicant in reply to a request for an advance opinion (förhandsbesked) that the Committee was not prepared to grant necessary exemptions from the building prohibition in force pursuant to Sections 109 and 110 of the Building Act.           On 12 March 1985 the Building Committee rejected an application by the applicant for exemption from the provision in the building plan in force that prescribes a minimum plot size of 1500 m2.           3.   The admissibility           Concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies the Government do not submit that there are remedies not used by the applicant.   It is only emphasised that, if the applicant applies again for a building permit or sub-division of the property, this application cannot be rejected on formal grounds, i.e. because a final decision has already been taken on the matter (res judicata).   A new application to the municipality for a dispensation from the building plan in force or for an alteration of the plan leads to a new examination and a new decision based on the facts relevant when the matter is considered.           In the Government's opinion the main question is whether the complaints can be considered to fall within the scope of Article 6 or whether the application should be declared inadmissible for being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention.           The Government have in several cases before the Commission presented their views regarding the application of Article 6 to the Swedish administrative procedural system.   These cases have in common that the applicants have had no opportunity of having their cases examined by a tribunal.   Nor is there such a possibility in regard to the decisions to adopt or confirm building plans.   This leads to the conclusion that, if the Commission should find that such decisions involve a determination of a dispute related to the applicant's civil rights within the meaning of the Convention, the applicant has had no access to a procedure according to the conditions of Article 6. However, the Government maintain that the decision now in question does not relate to a determination of the applicant's civil rights and the reasons are as follows.           When acceding to the Convention, the Government were convinced that proceedings, like the present ones, would not come within the scope of Article 6 para. 1.   Such proceedings belong in the field of public or administrative law.   They are dominated by considerations of public interest and determined principally by considerations of policy.   In the Government's view such an interpretation is well in line with the wording of the text and is also supported by the travaux préparatoires.           The decision to adopt a building plan is taken by a local parliamentary assembly (the Municipal Council) or by a special committee to which such matters can be delegated.   Thus, the planning as such is a matter on which the inhabitants of a municipality can have influence by ordinary political means.   In the political debate in a municipality the planning of the municipality can be an issue of major importance.           The planning is not aimed at increasing or diminishing the values of private property, but it is obvious that in exercising their duties and powers regarding planning the competent authorities have to take decisions that influence the individual's possibilities to use his property.   However, such effects cannot be considered a "determination of (his) civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of the Convention.   Decisions on planning are and must be a matter in the field of public law.           The applicant's complaints concern the exercise of the duties and powers of the competent local authorities in implementing the aim referred to in the decision of the County Administrative Board.   The authorities in question have not determined any legal relationship between the applicant and a third person.   The decisions by the Board and the Government only concern the special kind of relationship which exists between private subjects and the public, represented by authorities acting under public law in the public interest.           Furthermore, the question whether Article 6 is applicable in this case is of great importance to the Government.   If Article 6 is considered applicable in regard to decisions on planning, the conditions for the whole Swedish system of planning would be changed drastically.           The possibility of having decisions on planning examined by courts is something quite alien to the system of planning.   This system is based on the idea that the municipality is responsible for the use of land and the building within the municipality, and that the state control of how the municipalities carry out their obligations shall be exercised by the County Administrative Board and the Government.           Decisions on planning are carried out speedily by the County Administrative Boards and the Government, since such decisions often concern great economic interests of public as well as private nature, and even short delays can cause great losses.   As a rule, such decisions also concern a great number of persons.   If those were granted the right to have decisions on planning examined by a court