CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 9 mai 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 }                              PARTIAL                             AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 12258/86                       by the Estates of Mr. and Mrs.   SKÄRBY                       and their heirs and children                       against Sweden             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 9 May 1988, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   S. TRECHSEL                   G. SPERDUTI                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER              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 26 June 1986 by the Estates of Mr. and Mrs.   Skärby and their heirs and children against Sweden and registered on 30 June 1986 under file No. 12258/86;           Having regard to;     -      the Government's written observations dated 18 June 1987;     -      the applicant's written observations in reply dated         7 September 1987.           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 applicants are the Estates of Mr.   Christian Skärby and Mrs.   Maria Skärby and their heirs and children namely:   -        Mrs.   Ingegärd Skärby, born in 1909 and resident at Nyhamnsläge,   -        Mrs.   Rigmor Skärby, born in 1910 and resident at Ambjörby,   -        Mrs.   Majken Skärby, born in 1912 and resident at Nyhamnsläge,   -        Mr.   Bertil Skärby, born in 1914 and resident at Nyhamnsläge,   -        Mr.   Rolf Skärby, born in 1919 and resident at Kisa,   -        Mrs.   Lena Hedman, born in 1921 and resident at Höganäs.           The applicants are Swedish citizens.   They are represened before the Commission by Mr.   Bertil Grennberg, a patents consultant practising in Stockholm.           The particular facts of the case           In 1913 Mr.   Christian Skärby and Mrs.   Maria Skärby, who are now deceased, bought a farm in the south of Sweden.   The property was bought with a view to lodging and partly nourishing the family.   In 1915 a fire destroyed the house and a new one was built.   The property has been the family home of the Skärby family ever since.   Originally, the property consisted of three different parts called Flundrarp 4:9, Stubbarp 8:17 and Stubbarp 8:18.   The total surface is around eight hectares.   In 1960 Christian and Maria Skärby bought a new area of land adjacent to the property.   It was joined with Flundrarp 4:9 and was thereafter named Flundrarp 12:1.           The property is situated on the shore of Skälderviken, a bay outside the western coast of the province of Skåne in southern Sweden. The surroundings are considered to be one of the most beautiful in Sweden.   In the Act on the Preservation of Natural Resources (lagen om hushållning med naturresurser m m), which entered into force on 1 July 1987, this area is mentioned among those which, according to the Act, are considered of national interest with regard to natural and cultural values.           In 1962 the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen) of Malmö confirmed a building plan, which is still in force regarding the main part of Flundrarp 4:9.   According to that plan the part of the property situated closest to the shore should be preserved as a natural park.   The area further up should be used partly for agriculture and partly as a garden to the main building.   On the land around the main building new constructions are prohibited.   The plan does not prevent the applicants from preserving the main building and the two outhouses on the area intended as a garden to the main building.   Nor does the plan prevent the applicants from pulling down the main building and erecting a new one on the same spot.   On the area planned for agriculture farm buildings may be erected.           On the property there are five different buildings.   Apart from the main building there is a store building containing one room which is used as a dwelling.   Besides these two buildings there are three small buildings within the area.   One is situated within the part of the property where, according to the plan of 1962, no new buildings are allowed.   The remaining two buildings are situated within the area which is reserved as a natural park.           In 1964 the County Administrative Board confirmed a building plan regarding the remaining part of Flundrarp 4:9 and Stubbarp 8:17 and 8:18.   According to this plan the land owner was allowed to erect two or, depending on the size, three buildings for recreation purposes on Flundrarp and about 15 such buildings on Stubbarp 8:17 and 8:18. No buildings have yet been erected according to this plan.   However, new constructions within the area covered by this building plan were prohibited under Section 110 of the Building Act (byggnadslagen) until water supplies and sewerage systems are provided.   The main reason for this prohibition was that lack of subsoil water makes a coordination necessary when providing water supplies and sewerage systems for the area.           In 1983 to 1984 a new building plan was proposed regarding a part of Flundrarp 12:1.   This proposed plan was made following a request from the Skärby family.   In this proposal one plot was planned for the main building and one for the store building.   Three more plots were planned, two of which would be situated within the part of the area where, according to the existing plan of 1962, no new buildings may be erected.   The third plot would be situated in the area intended for agriculture.   The natural park was extended to cover also the area which, according to the plan of 1964, was meant for the two or three buildings for recreation purposes on Flundrarp 12:1.           This proposed plan was approved by some of the parties to the estate of Christian and Maria Skärby, but some of them did not approve of the development agreement (exploateringsavtal) which the municipality proposed.   The municipality considered that an agreement was necessary in order to approve the proposed alteration of the building plan.   The agreement should inter alia regulate how the costs for the planning should be paid and how the water supply system and the sewerage system should be provided in regard to these three new plots.   This was considered necessary in order to lift the building prohibition in force.           In 1986 Bertil Skärby applied to the Building Committee (byggnadsnämnden) of Höganäs for a building permit to erect a house and two garages on Flundrarp 12:1.           In a decision of 24 March 1986 the Building Committee rejected the application on the ground that the buildings proposed would not comply with the building plan in force.   The decision also meant that the Committee found no reason for granting an exemption from the plan.           Insofar as the decision involved a decision to refuse an exemption from the building plan, no appeal was possible.           Today the main building on the property is inhabited by Mrs.   Majken Skärby who is retired.   She is severely ill, suffering from Parkinson's disease and a decalcification of her skeleton.   The house is badly insulated and draughty.   The applicants consider that it is no use repairing it.   In addition, the situation of the house on the property has become unsuitable as a result of the noise from the traffic on the road which has been constructed nearby.   For medical reasons and in view of the great risk that she will soon need a wheelchair in order to move around, Mrs.   Skärby is not able to stay very long in this house.   She is in great need of a new house.           Mr.   Bertil Skärby is also retired and lives at present in the above-mentioned store building.   It is a simple house where, the applicants submit, the hens were previously kept.   The house has no running water and no stove.   He is therefore also in great need of a new house on the property which he is exploiting.           Relevant legislation           This case relates to the consequences of an adopted building plan.           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.           A building 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 prohibition 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 (kommunfullmäktige).   The matter can also be delegated to the Building Committee.    Before acquiring 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 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 - can prohibit new constructions in the area.   Such a 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 prohibition of new constructions or on the extension of such a prohibition can be appealed to the Government.           According to Section 110 first paragraph of the Building Act, a new construction may not take place in contravention of 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 sewerage systems have been provided.           Exemptions can be granted from the prohibitions to construct in individual cases.   Such a decision is taken by the County Administrative Board or by the Building Committee if the County Administrative Board has delegated competence to grant exemptions to that Committee.   Nearly all municipalities have such authorisation.           A condition for granting an exemption from a building prohibition in contravention of 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.           The costs for developing a building plan are paid by the municipality.   However, the property owners concerned shall compensate the municipality for the costs in proportion to the acreage of the property, if the plan is considered to be of considerable use to the owner (Section 101 of the Building Act).   Such compensation is often stipulated in an agreement into which the municipality enters with the property owners concerned.           It is for the owners of the land to see to it that roads and other amenities are completed within an area covered by a building plan.           A building plan can be altered if required.   According to Section 23 of the Building Ordinance (byggnadsstadgan), the provisions concerning the adoption and confirmation of building plans shall, in principle, also apply to the alteration or withdrawal of such plans. There are, however, no rules that indicate the material pre-conditions determining how alteration or confirmation is to be decided.           A decision of the Building Committee under the Building Act or the Building Ordinance, for example regarding a building permit, may be appealed to the County Administrative Board and further to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) and ultimately to the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten).   A decision to refuse an exemption from a confirmed building plan cannot be appealed (Section 71 of the Building Ordinance).     COMPLAINTS   1.       The applicants complain that they have not have had a fair and public hearing before a court in respect of their claim for a right to build a new house on their property.   They allege that Article 6 of the Convention has been violated.   2.       The applicants maintain that they have been denied the right to live in decent houses on their own property where they have worked for seventy-three years in order to make the property more beautiful and pleasant.   They submit that this is in breach of Article 8 of the Convention.   3.       The applicants also submit that Article 17 of the Convention has been violated because public power has been used beyond the limits permitted under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   4.       The applicants also allege that Article 18 of the Convention has been violated in that the real purpose of the local authorities has been to acquire the applicants' property at a low price in order to sell it to holiday-makers.   5.       Finally, the applicants allege that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has been violated since the applicants are no longer allowed to live in a decent manner on their property where they have lived for a long time and which they wish to continue exploiting.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 26 June 1986 and registered on 30 June 1986.           On 4 March 1987 the Commission decided to invite the Government to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.           The Government's observations were, after an extension of the time-limit, received by letter dated 18 June 1987 and the applicant's observations in reply were dated 7 September 1987.           At the request of the Rapporteur the applicants submitted a document by letter dated 22 October 1987.     SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES   A.       The Government   1.       The facts           The Government observe that if an individual who applies for a building permit submits that an exemption from a building plan is not necessary for obtaining a building permit - alleging that the building 12258/86   will be erected in accordance with the plan - the decision of the Building Committee can be appealed.   Such an appeal should be made to the County Administrative Board and ultimately to the Government. However, no appeal lies in respect of a decision not to grant an exemption from a building plan.           The reason why it is not allowed to make an appeal, as regards decisions to refuse exemptions from building plans, is that the suitability of the plan has once been decided upon when the plan was confirmed.   At that time it was possible to make an appeal against that decision.   It should not be possible to have the same issue examined all over again every time an application for a building permit, which implies an exemption from the building plan, is examined.           The present complaints to the Commission concern the decision of the Building Committee of Höganäs to refuse an exemption from the existing building plan.   The new dwelling and the two garage buildings would be located within the area of Flundrarp 12:1 which according to the building plan is regarded as a natural park within which there exists a prohibition to erect new buildings.           Accordingly, the issue is not whether the applicants shall be allowed to build a new house on the property, but where upon the property concerned the new houses shall be situated.   In the plan proposed in 1983-1984 the municipality offered the applicants four new sites upon which buildings may be erected according to that plan. They are located at the property within an area which the parties to the estate approved upon in 1984.   However, an adoption of the proposed plan implies that they accept to contribute to the costs of the municipality for altering the building plan and for sewerage and water supply systems.   The location of the new sites proposed by the municipality is very close to what the applicants wish.   They are situated less than 200 meters from what was suggested in Bertil Skärby's application for a building permit which was rejected on 24 March 1986.   However, in the Building Committee's opinion the location proposed in the plan is far better with regard to the landscape and the general interest.           The applicants' allegation that the Superior Land Surveyor (överlantmätaren) and the Architect of the County (länsarkitekten) in 1961 declared that the plan of 1962 would not be an obstacle to the construction of new buildings is contested.   It is most unlikely that these two officials stated anything to this effect.   This would imply that they declared that the plan adopted should not be followed which would be against the law.           2.       The admissibility           2.1      In general           The Government have several objections as to the admissibility of this application.           The estates of Maria and Christian Skärby are the owners of the property concerned.   These estates are claiming to be victims of a violation of the Convention.           According to Swedish procedural law an estate of a deceased person can bring an action before a court provided that all the parties to the estate agree upon such a measure.   This is because the estate forms a legal person.   A court order concerning the estate is binding on the whole estate.           The power of attorney for Mr.   Grennberg appended to the application of 18 December 1986 has been signed by Mr.   Bertil Skärby on behalf of the estates of Christian and Maria Skärby.   Bertil Skärby is authorised to act on behalf of the estates according to a power of attorney signed on 28 February 1969.           Since there seems to be disagreement between the parties to the estates as to whether the development agreement proposed by the municipality should be accepted or not and since the power of attorney for Bertil Skärby was signed 18 years ago it would be appropriate to ascertain that the complaints before the Commission are supported by all parties to the estates of Maria and Christian Skärby.           If this is not the case the application should be declared inadmissible ratione personae as far as the estates are concerned, since the complaints cannot be brought before the Commission on behalf of the estates if the complaints are supported only by certain parties to the estates.           In this context it is noted that it was not the estates but Bertil Skärby who applied for a building permit, which application was rejected by the Building Committee in its decision of 24 March 1986.           The Government also maintain that the applicants have not exhausted domestic remedies.           The decision of 24 March 1986 to refuse an exemption from the building plan relates to the building plan which was confirmed by the County Administrative Board in 1962.   No appeal was lodged against that decision by the Skärby family.   Such an appeal could have been lodged with the Government.           Nor has there been an appeal against the decision of 24 March 1986.   It is true that an appeal cannot be lodged against the decision as far as an exemption from the building plan is concerned. However, it is possible to appeal against the decision claiming that an exemption was not necessary for a certain reason or that the issue was not handled properly for some reason.   Appeals should be made to the County Administrative Board and further to the Government or to the Administrative Court of Appeal.           According to Section 108 of the Building Act the applicants also have the possibility to turn directly to the County Administrative Board requesting it to alter the plan in the way they wish provided that they can prove that there is a need for an alteration of the plan and that the municipality has failed in its duty in this regard.   A decision on such a request can be appealed to the Government.   In the present case such a request will probably be rejected but the possibility, which has not been used by the applicants, forms a safeguard against a municipality which fails in its duty towards the common interests as well as the interests of individuals. 12258/86           The Government also submit that the applicants have prevented a further examination of the matter by not accepting the development agreement proposed by the municipality.   If signed, this agreement would not have entered into force until the alteration of the plan was confirmed by a decision of the County Administrative Board.   Against such a decision an appeal could have been lodged and the plan thus could have been examined with regard to general and individual interests.   The applicants could have claimed an extended right to erect buildings or a possibility to build on other parts of the property concerned.   When examining such an appeal it rests upon the County Administrative Board to consider whether the interests of the individual have been taken into account to a reasonable extent.   The development agreement and its conditions could have been examined in this context.           Even if the plan proposed had been confirmed, the applicants had the possibility of having the fairness of the development agreement examined by the general courts if they wished.   Before a general court they could have claimed that the agreement was not valid because it must be considered unfair.           As regards the information which the applicants allege was given by the Superior Land Surveyor (överlantmätaren) and by the Architect for the County (länsarkitekten) the applicants seem to submit that this information was a main reason for Christian Skärby not to lodge an appeal against the plan decision of 1962.   Assuming that such information was given, which the Government contest, the applicants could have requested the Supreme Administrative Court to set a new time limit for an appeal against the decision of the County Administrative Board so that an appeal against that decision could be lodged (återställande av försutten tid).   This they could have done as soon as they realised that they had received false information.   In their submission to the Supreme Administrative Court they could have stated that, due to that information, they had abstained from making an appeal against the decision.   This possibility has apparently never been tried.           As far as the six months rule is concerned the Government maintain that it is the decision of 1962 to confirm the building plan which forms the basis for the restrictions made regarding construction on the property.   The decision of 24 March 1986 is only a logical consequence of the plan decision of 1962.   In reality the complaints concern the decision of 1962 which is more than twenty years old. This means that the six months rule has not been observed.   Should the Commission consider the decision of 1986 to refuse an exemption from the plan as the final decision from which the six months period should be calculated, the Government have no objection in this regard.   2.2      Article 6 of the Convention           The Government maintain that the complaints do not fall within the scope of Article 6.   This Article would only be applicable if the case concerned a determination of the civil rights of the applicants. 12258/86           However, the issue is not whether the applicants should be allowed to build another house on the property, but on what spot within the property the houses (which they are allowed to build) should be situated and whether they should be allowed to build an increased number of houses without contributing to the municipality's costs for planning, water supply and sewerage systems.           In the Government's view this question does not relate to a civil right within the meaning of the Convention.   The location of a new building must be considered within an area regulated by other considerations than purely legal views.   A main issue is the effect on the landscape caused by the building.   Considerations in this regard have been dominant in the present case.   They can hardly be examined by a court.   In the Government's view considerations of this kind were never meant to fall within the scope of the expression "civil rights". This view is in line with the wording of the text and is also supported by the travaux préparatoires to the Convention.   The Government refer to a decision of the Commission in a case against Sweden (No. 10977/84, Dec. 1.7.85).           Planning is a matter which the inhabitants of a municipality can influence by ordinary political means.   That is why a plan is originally adopted by a political body, namely the Building Committee of the municipality.   In the political debate a building plan can be an issue of major importance.           The question whether Article 6 is applicable in a case like the present one is of great importance to the Swedish Government.   If the provision 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 activities within the municipality, and that the state control of how the municipalities carry out their obligations is exercised by the County Administrative Board and the Government.           Before a plan is adopted, landowners and others concerned are duly consulted and the proposed plan is exposed at a public planning-exhibition in the municipality.   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 in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention, which i.a. prescribes public hearings, such a procedure would entail a great risk that the whole planning-procedure would be delayed for a considerable time.   Any such delay may lead to serious consequences for the municipality, exploiters and others. There is also an inherent risk that there may be those who would use the possibility to go to court in order to delay planning-decisions which they are not prepared to accept for political, ideological or other reasons not relevant in this context.           The Government maintain that the complaints under Article 6 fall outside the scope of the Convention.   The application should therefore in this regard be declared inadmissible for being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention.   2.3      Article 8 of the Convention           The Government maintain that the right to respect for a person's private and family life, home and correspondence does not include a right to a certain standard of a dwelling.   The complaint in this regard falls outside the scope of Article 8 and should be declared inadmissible for being incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention.   In any event, this complaint is manifestly ill-founded.   2.4      Other Articles invoked           The Government submit that the complaints under Articles 17 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention are inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded. Reference is made to what is said below on the merits.           3.       The merits   3.1      Article 6 of the Convention           If it is assumed that the decision of the County Administrative Board to confirm the building plan of 1962 involves a determination of civil rights and obligations the Government admit that there is no possibility to have this decision examined by a court.   As regards the decision of the Building Committee of 24 March 1986 the Government submit that there is a possibility to have issues regarding building permits examined by a court to a certain extent.           The Government observe that officials who have taken part in a decision which is considered unlawful are responsible for this decision and they can be prosecuted for abuse of office or for careless abuse of office according to the Penal Code (brottsbalken). However, in this case the Government see no reason to question the lawfulness of the decisions taken.   3.2      Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention           In the Government's view this case does not concern a categoric refusal to allow the applicants to build a new house on their property.   On the contrary, the Skärby family has been granted extended rights to erect buildings.   The present situation is caused by the fact that certain members of the family are not prepared to accept the development agreement, which is connected with an alteration of the existing building plan.   The conditions under this agreement cannot be considered unreasonable.           The municipality's costs for planning the area amount to about 59.000 SEK.   The agreement stipulates that the applicants should pay 30.000 SEK of these costs.   Of this amount 10.000 SEK have already been paid.           The costs for a municipal sewerage and water supply system for the new plots planned amount to 20.000 SEK for the two plots in the north west and to 125.000 SEK for the plot in the north east. These sums should be paid by the applicants according to the agreement.           It is not unreasonable to require a person who intends to erect buildings on his property to contribute to these kinds of costs.   It is not possible to let the municipalities themselves be answerable for all these costs.   Sewerage and water supply-systems must be provided for all dwellings.   Areas, covered by a building plan or a town plan, are or will become densely populated, and for health and environment reasons sewerage and water supply-systems must be provided jointly for all estates within such an area.   This is all in the interest of the property owner and the inhabitants of the municipality.           The necessity of planning as regards housing has been recognised in other cases before the Commission.   The Government admit that the system as such interferes with the rights of the individual to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.           However, a planning decision does not deprive anyone of his property.   It only limits a person's possibility to use his property for example for building purposes.   No other effect appears in this case.   The planning decision and the decision of 24 March 1986 are both based on an Act enforced in order to control the use of property. Thus, it is the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which is applicable to the case.           It remains to examine whether a fair balance was struck between the public interest and the protection of the individual's rights.           The consideration underlying the plan decision and the Building Committee's decision of 24 March 1986 is to preserve the unique area as a natural resource for the future.   This certainly is an aim in the public interest.           The Government maintain that the interests of the individual have been taken into account to a reasonable extent.   The applicants have not been totally refused permission to erect buildings on the property.   Instead they have been given this opportunity but on certain conditions which they have refused to accept.   These conditions cannot be considered unfair.   The location of the site according to the proposed plan of 1983-1984 must be considered acceptable.   The present buildings on the property may be in a very bad condition.   However, nothing has prevented the applicants from repairing the buildings at an earlier stage when this was still possible.   The plan decision has not prevented the owners therefrom.           When looking at the situation as a whole it may be observed that the authorities have taken several measures in order to meet the needs of the applicants, far beyond what they were obliged to do according to the legislation in force.   The decisions taken were lawful and cannot be said to contravene the general principles of international law.           The Government are of the opinion that there is no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that the complaints are manifestly ill-founded.   3.3      Articles 8, 17 and 18 of the Convention           Regarding Article 8 of the Convention the Government maintain that the right to respect for private and family life does not apply to the standard of a dwelling.   The applicants have not been denied the right to live on their property.           The Government fail to see how the use of public power in this case can give rise to an allegation that Article 17 of the Convention has been violated.   The applicants allege that the local authorities intended to create a situation which could make it possible for the authorities to purchase the applicant's property at a low price in order to sell it to holiday makers.   Such a way of acting would probably be regarded as an abuse of office.   Any allegation in this regard is contested.           The Government maintain that the complaints under Articles 17 and 18 are manifestly ill-founded.           4.       Conclusions           The position of the Government in this case is           concerning the admissibility:         that the application should be declared inadmissible, partly ratione personae, for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, for failure to observe the six months rule laid down in Article 26 and, as regards Articles 6 and 8, ratione materiae, and finally as regards Articles 8, 17 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 for being manifestly ill-founded, and           concerning the merits:         that there is no violation of the Convention as far as Articles 8, 17 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are concerned.       B.       The applicants   1.       The facts           The applicants recall that the legislation relevant to the present case has changed practically every year.   In the beginning there were only a few regulations in the law concerning buildings necessary for agriculture.   This freedom has gradually been restricted through legislation.           Partly as a result of the efforts of the family, the property has become very beautiful and in 1958, when the municipality wished to make a building plan for the area, the responsible architect wanted to make a natural park of the area.   Subsequently a new plan was exposed in the local school and in that plan a large part of the land of Flundrarp 12:1 was marked as a natural park.   The Skärby family asked the responsible local authorities about the legal significance of the reservation of the land as a natural park because they wished in all circumstances to be able to build on the property in order to satisfy the needs of the family.   The house in which they lived was not of first quality since it had been constructed long ago and it was envisaged at the time that the new construction should be carried out in a not too distant future.   However, the responsible local authorities could not reply to this request but advised the family to submit an enquiry to the County Administrative Board of Malmö.   As a result, in 1961, Mr.   Christian Skärby, accompanied by his two children Majken and Bertil, went by car to the County Administrative Board of Malmö and they were received by the Superior Land Surveyor and by the Architect of the County.   These public officials declared clearly that the plan would not be an obstacle to the construction of the houses which the family might be in need of in the future, if the family did not object to the plan proposed.   It is submitted that the authorities thus gave clear assurances that if the children were to construct a new house on the territory marked "natural park" this would be acceptable.   As a result the family decided not to lodge an appeal against the proposed plan.   In 1968, after the death of Mr.   Christian Skärby, the children wanted to construct a new house and accordingly asked for a preliminary decision from the municipality.   It then appeared that the previous promises and assurances did not have any value and it was even questioned whether they had ever existed.           The applicants point out that it appears from the Government's submissions as if the 1962 building plan pre-supposes a use of the part of the property called natural park, similar to that envisaged for land declared protected natural area.   However, such a declaration of a piece of land pre-supposes the payment of compensation for the damage suffered by the proprietor and a declaration under Section 118 of the Building Act.   Such a declaration has never been made.           It is true that the word natural park is not found anywhere in the legislation.   It may then be assumed that the intention of the authorities at the time when this terminoloy was used was precisely what was explained orally to the owners, i.e. the applicant's father, on the occasion of his visit to the County Administrative Board for further information.   The applicants insist that the meeting in 1961 really took place and Mr.   Skärby and Mrs.   Skärby who were present at the meeting could give evidence under oath.           In view of the extended right to construct for agricultural properties at that time it appears that, as time has gone by, there has been a transformation unfavourable to the applicants.           It is true that the municipality has proposed places for the constructions.   However, the applicants are of the opinion that these places have been chosen precisely because the authorities knew that they were unacceptable to the applicants.   For instance the authorities have proposed that the applicants should construct on the small court yard between the present dwelling and the out-buildings which would destroy the value of the said out-buildings.           The applicants allege that there has been a discrimination between the applicants and the neighbour owners.   In respect of a property situated near to the applicants, the applicants point out that the civil servant responsible for the questions of protection of the nature had to decide on the use of the land.   The land was owned by a foundation and it was intended to construct a golf course and a group of leisure houses as well as houses for permanent dwellings. The civil servant who had to decide on the case received at the same time from the foundation an amount of 57,000 SEK for private research purposes.   This development of the land was very controversial and there was reason to suspect corruption.   A Member of Parliament brought a complaint and notified the Minister of Justice and the fiscal authorities.   This case has not yet been settled.   2.       The admissibility           The applicants agree to introduce the present application before the Commission.   In support the applicants refer to a new letter of authority dated 30 May 1986.   The applicants also refer to a declaration made by the three successors who have signed the development agreement.   They declare that they thought that this agreement was the only possibility to change the blocked situation in the negotiations with the municipality, even if they thereby had to content themselves with what they considered to be an injustice.           As regards exhaustion of domestic remedies the Government have argued that the applicants could have appealed against the decision of 1962 and then against the decision of 1986 and that they could request a reinstatement in proceedings when they realised that the information given by the authorities in 1961 was incorrect.   Furthermore, the Government maintain that the applicants could have requested an amendment of the plan.           The reason why the applicants did not appeal against the building plan of 1962 was that the plan as presented by the authorities did not put any obstacles to the construction of houses to satisfy the needs of the family.           The decision of 1986 was not revisable unless it was illegal. Illegality could however not be seriously invoked and accordingly an appeal was useless.   A request for reinstatement in proceedings is not counted as a do