CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 13 octobre 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 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block }            Application No. 11855/85   Gösta HÅKANSSON and Sune STURESSON   against   SWEDEN             REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 13 October 1988)     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. 15-42) ............      4         A.   Particular circumstances of the case           (paras. 15-31) ....................................      4         B.   Relevant domestic law           (paras. 32-42) ....................................      6     III.   SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES (paras. 43-94) .............     10         A.   The applicants           (paras. 43-64) ....................................     10             a.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention               (paras. 43-59) ................................     10             b.   Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention               (paras. 60-64) ................................     14         B.   The Government           (paras. 65-94) ....................................     15             a.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention               (paras. 65-79) ................................     15             b.   Article 6 of the Convention               (paras. 80-92) ................................     18                 aa.   The refusal to grant the applicants                    permission to retain the property                    (paras. 80-85) ...........................     18                 bb.   The public sale                    (paras. 86-92) ...........................     20             c.   Article 13 of the Convention               (paras. 93-94) ................................     21     IV.      OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras. 95-156) ............    23           A.   Points at issue             (para. 95) ......................................     23           B.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention             (paras. 96-116) .................................     23           C.   Article 6 of the Convention             (paras. 117-150) ................................     27               a.   Proceedings concerning the permit to retain                 the property                 (paras. 117-132) ............................     27                   aa.   Applicability of Article 6 para. 1 of                      the Convention                      (paras. 117-124) .......................     27                   bb.   Compliance with Article 6 para. 1                      of the Convention                      (paras. 125-132) .......................     28               b.   Absence of a public hearing before the Göta                 Court of Appeal                 (paras. 133-150) ............................     29                   aa.   Applicability of Article 6 para. 1                      of the Convention                      (para. 135) ............................     29                   bb.   Compliance with Article 6 para. 1 of                      the Convention                      (paras. 136-150) .......................     30           D.   Article 13 of the Convention             (paras. 151-153) ................................     32           E.   Article 14 of the Convention             (paras. 154-155) ................................     33           F.   Recapitulation             (para. 156) .....................................     33     Opinion partiellement dissidente de M. Vandenberghe, rejoint par M. Soyer ........................................     34   Dissenting opinion of MM. Nørgaard, Schermers, Danelius Sir Basil Hall and Mrs Liddy ................................     35     APPENDIX I :   HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ....................     36   APPENDIX II:   DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY .................     38   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 applicants are Mr.   Gösta Håkansson, born in 1926, resident at Höör and a police officer by profession, and Mr.   Sune Sturesson, born in 1931, resident at Skånes Fagerhult and a farmer by profession. Both applicants are Swedish citizens.   They are represented before the Commission by Mr.   Göran Ravnsborg, a lecturer of law at the University of Lund.   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 the acquisition and the subsequent forced sale of agricultural land and raises issues mainly as to whether the administrative decision not to grant the applicants a permit to retain a property which they bought at a public auction violates Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 6 of the Convention.   B.       The proceedings   5.       The application was introduced on 3 April 1984 and registered on 15 November 1985.   On 12 May 1986 the Commission decided, in accordance with Rule 42, para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite them to present before 25 August 1986 their observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of the application.           The Government's observations were dated 21 August 1986 and the applicants' observations in reply were dated 9 October 1986.           On 4 March 1987 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 July 1987, the applicants were represented by Mr.   Göran Ravnsborg.   The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr.   Hans Corell, and by Mr.   Rolf Strömberg, Permanent Under-Secretary and Chief Legal Officer at the Ministry of Environment and Energy, and Mr.   Håkan Berglin, Legal Adviser at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, as advisers.   6.       On 15 July 1987 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 and to reply to certain questions.           The Government submitted further observations on 12 November 1987 and 7 January 1988, and the applicants submitted observations by letter of 5 January 1988.   The observations of each party were transmitted to the other party for comments before 1 March 1988.           The parties submitted further observations each by a letter dated 26 February 1988.   The Government submitted a further letter dated 25 April 1988 and the applicants a further letter dated 12 August 1988.   8.       On 5 March and 9 July 1988 the Commission considered the state of proceedings of the case.   On 3 October 1988 the Commission deliberated on the merits of the application 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 applicants on 12 December 1986.   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, President                   J. A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   J. C. SOYER                   H. G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Sir   Basil HALL              Mr.   C. L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY             The text of the Report was adopted by the Commission on 13 October 1988 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 State concerned of its              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.      On 4 December 1979 the applicants bought an agricultural real estate called Risböke 1:3 in the municipality of Markaryd at a public auction (exekutiv auktion) for 240,000 SEK.   The property had been seized by a decision of 11 July 1979 in order to secure the payment of the previous owners' debts to three banks.   According to a valuation made before the auction, the value of the property had been estimated at 140,000 SEK.   The sale at the auction acquired legal force.   16.      On 7 January 1980 the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen) of the County of Kronoberg issued a letter of purchase (köpebrev).   In this letter the applicants were reminded that according to Section 16 para. 1 of the Land Acquisition Act (jordförvärvslagen) a property which has been acquired at a public auction in such circumstances that a permit to acquire the land would have been necessary if the land had been acquired by a voluntary purchase must be sold within two years from the date on which the auction acquired legal force unless the buyer has obtained a permit to retain the property, and if the property is not sold within the said period, the County Administrative Board shall, at the request of the County Agricultural Board (lantbruksnämnden), order that the property be sold at a public auction in accordance with Section 17 of the said Act.   17.      On 7 January 1980 the applicants submitted a request to the County Agricultural Board of the County of Kronoberg that they be granted a permit to retain the real estate Risböke 1:3 under the Land Acquisition Act.           Following an enquiry by the County Agricultural Board the applicants were informed by a letter of 5 February 1980 that the real estate must, in view of its size, situation and nature, be considered as a "rationalisation" unit which ought to be used for the purpose of strengthening other properties in the area which could be further developed.   The Board indicated that neighbours were interested in acquiring the property and a refusal of the request for the permit could therefore be envisaged under Section 4 para. 1 sub-section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act.   Moreover, the Board indicated that there were reasons to believe that the Board would find that the price for the real estate was too high for redemption (inlösen).   The applicants were given the opportunity to comment upon the letter of the Board.   18.      On 15 February 1980 the County Agricultural Board rejected the applicants' request for a permit to retain the property.   It considered that the real estate was of importance for rationalisation and ought to be used for the purpose of strengthening other properties in the area which could be further developed.   19.      The applicants appealed to the National Board of Agriculture (lantbruksstyrelsen) which in a decision of 5 September 1980 rejected the appeal, stating inter alia as follows:           "The National Board of Agriculture finds, as did the County         Agricultural Board, that the real estate at issue lacks         the prerequisites for remaining as a commercial unit of its           own.   Moreover, the National Board considers that a new         establishment on the real estate would be likely to make it         more difficult for the active farmer in the area to develop         his business."           From the decision of the National Board of Agriculture it appears that there are no buildings on the property at issue.   It has an area of 41 hectares of which 18 hectares are forest and eight hectares are pasture.   It furthermore appears that Mr.   Sturesson owns and runs a real estate of an area of 10 hectares of pasture and 63 hectares of forest.   This property is situated approximately 25 kilometres from the property bought by the applicants.   It furthermore appears from the decision of the National Board that the applicants' intention when acquiring the property was to build up units which at present would create opportunities of employment and which subsequently could become financially sound properties to be exploited by the applicants' children.   It moreover appears that the property at issue is situated in an area where in the opinion of the County Agricultural Board there is only room for one active farmer and that the neighbouring property is at present rented by Michael Borg who has also rented his parents' estate which comprises five hectares of pasture and 42 hectares of forest.   Michael Borg had shown great interest in the property at issue.   20.      The applicants appealed to the Government (Ministry of Agriculture) which in a decision of 26 February 1981 rejected the appeal.   21.      Following a new request dated 4 January 1982, the County Agricultural Board of the County of Kronoberg rejected an application from the applicants for a permit to retain the real estate Risböke 1:3.   In the decision, which was dated 25 January 1982, the County Agricultural Board stated that the real estate at issue was considered to be a unit suitable for rationalisation purposes which ought to be used for the strengthening of properties within the area which could be further developed.   It furthermore stated that the Board was not prepared to redeem the real estate at the price of 240,000 SEK.   22.      The applicants appealed against this decision to the National Board of Agriculture which, after having inspected the property, rejected the appeal on 15 November 1982.   23.      The applicants submitted a further appeal to the Government which on 27 October 1983 rejected the appeal.   24.      In a letter of 11 January 1985 the applicants requested the Government to reconsider their decision of 27 October 1983.   On 14 March 1985 the Government decided not to take any measures in respect of the applicants' request.   In their decision, the Government recalled that the appeal case had been finally decided by them on 27 October 1983.   25.      The applicants brought proceedings before the Real Estate Court (fastighetsdomstolen) of the District Court (tingsrätten) of Växjö requesting that the State redeem the real estate in accordance with Section 14 of the Land Acquisition Act.   In a judgment of 11 December 1981 the Court rejected the applicants' claim, stating that the provision invoked by the applicants could not be applied by   analogy to the applicants' situation and that, consequently, the conditions for ordering the State to redeem the property were not satisfied.   The applicants appealed to the Göta Court of Appeal (Göta hovrätt) which on 1 July 1982 confirmed the judgment of the District Court.   On 14 July 1983 the Supreme Court (högsta domstolen) refused to grant the applicants leave to file a further appeal.   26.      At the request of the County Agricultural Board, the County Administrative Board, on 10 November 1983, ordered that the real estate Risböke 1:3 should be sold at a public auction.           In a decision of 19 April 1984 the Enforcement Office (kronofogdemyndigheten) found that the real estate had a value of 125,000 SEK. The applicants appealed against this decision to the Göta Court of Appeal which in a decision of 4 June 1984 dismissed the appeal stating that it was not possible to appeal against the decision of the Enforcement Office as it was only a preparatory stage for a subsequent decision on the sale of the real estate.   The applicants appealed against this decision to the Supreme Court which on 23 August 1984 refused to grant leave to appeal.   27.      Before the public sale on 18 June 1985 the property had undergone three valuations, one by the National Board of Forestry (skogsvårdsstyrelsen) of February and March 1984, another by the Senior Land Surveyor (överlantmätaren) of the County of Kronoberg of April 1984 and a third by two specially appointed valuers of October 1984.   The latter valuers had been appointed on 26 June 1984 by the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen).           As a result of the first valuation, the value of the real estate was decided as being 100,000 SEK.           The second valuation by the Senior Land Surveyor resulted in an estimated value of the estate of 125,000 SEK. The third valuation by two specially appointed valuers, while referring to the previous two valuations, nevertheless resulted in a value of 172,000 SEK which was the value to be the basis for the public auction in June 1985.   28.      The public auction took place on 18 June 1985.   It was noted that the real estate had been assessed at a value of 172,000 SEK and that the taxable value was 107,000 SEK.   The lowest bid which could be accepted would be 172,000 SEK.   At the public auction, only one offer of 172,000 SEK was made.   The offer was made by the County Agricultural Board, and it was accepted by the Enforcement Office.   29.      Prior to the auction, four different applications for an advance permit (förhandstillstånd) to acquire the property Risböke 1:3 had been rejected by the County Agricultural Board.   Applications from Stellan Ingemarsson, Artur Svensson and Nils Arvid Torstensson were rejected on 10 June 1985 and an application from Anders Håkansson was rejected on 14 June 1985.           However, a request for an advance permit from Michael Borg and Thorwald Borg had previously been granted by the County Agricultural Board on 10 April 1984 on the condition that they applied, within two months from the public auction, for a merger of Risböke 1:3 with Tiböke 1:8 and 1:9.   30.      The applicants appealed against the public auction to the Göta Court of Appeal requesting that the sale of the property be annulled. They argued that the property had been sold at a price which was lower that the market price and that the valuation which arrived at the amount of 172.000 SEK had been based on an assessment of the yield of the property and not on its market value.   On 3 July 1985 the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal.   31.      The applicants submitted a further appeal to the Supreme Court which on 20 August 1985 refused to grant leave to appeal.   B.       Relevant domestic law   32.      The acquisition of a real estate, which is assessed for tax purposes as an agricultural holding, is subject to the regulations of the 1979 Land Acquisition Act.   The Act was enacted in 1979 - replacing an Act of 1965 on the same issue - in order to implement the new agricultural guidelines adopted by the Riksdag in 1977 and also to meet the policy goals of forestry and regional planning.   Among the aims particularly to be furthered by the Act are the creation and preservation of effective family holdings so as to strengthen the connection between cultivation and ownership, and also the promotion of a continuous structural rationalisation of agriculture and forestry.   33.      Under Section 1 of the Act, a permit is required for the acquisition of real estate assessed for tax purposes as an agricultural holding.   Section 2 enumerates a number of exceptions, none of which is relevant to the present case.   34.      When deciding on an application for a permit, it shall be taken into account that the setting up and development of rational enterprises in agriculture, forestry and horticulture (farm holdings) should be promoted (Section 3).           Section 4 provides inter alia:           (Swedish)           "Förvärvstillstånd skall vägras,           1.   om köpeskillingen eller annan ersättning inte endast         obetydligt överstiger egendomens värde med hänsyn till dess         avkastning och övriga omständigheter,         2.   om det kan antas att förvärvet sker huvudsakligen för         kapitalplacering,         3.   om egendomen behövs för jordbrukets eller skogsbrukets         rationalisering..."           (English translation)           "A permit to acquire the property shall be refused,           1.   if the price or other compensation significantly         exceeds the value of the property in view of its yield and         other conditions,         2.   if it can be assumed that the acquisition is effected         mainly as an investment,         3.   if the property is required for the rationalisation of         agriculture or forestry..."   35.      A property acquired at a compulsory auction under circumstances which, in case of an ordinary purchase, would have required a permit, shall, according to Section 16 para. 1 of the Act, be re-sold within two years unless the said circumstances no longer exist or the purchaser has obtained a permission from the County Agricultural Board to retain the property.   In case of an application for such a permission, the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 shall apply.   36.      A decision by the County Agricultural Board not to grant permission to retain property acquired at a compulsory auction may be appealed to the National Board of Agriculture and ultimately to the Government.   37.      In case a purchase of property becomes invalid as a result of a refusal of permission to acquire the property on the ground that it is needed for the rationalisation of agriculture and forestry, the State is, according to Section 14 of the Act, obliged to redeem the property at the purchase price agreed upon if the seller requests it. However, under the same Section, no such obligation exists in case the purchase price considerably exceeds the value of the property in view of its yield and other circumstances, or if the terms are unreasonable in other respects.           In respect of property acquired at a compulsory auction there is, unlike the situation in case of an ordinary purchase, no obligation for the State to redeem the property.   38.      According to Section 14 para. 2 of the Act, an action for redemption of property by the State shall be brought before a Real Estate Court, whose decision may be appealed to a Court of Appeal and ultimately to the Supreme Court.   39.      In case the property has not, when required under the above provisions, been sold within the prescribed time limit, the County Administrative Board shall, according to Section 16 para. 1, order that the property be sold by the Enforcement Office at a public auction.   40.      The basic provisions concerning an auction are found in Section 17 of the Act and, by reference in this Section, in Chapter 12 of the 1981 Code of Enforcement (utsökningsbalken).   No sale may take place unless the purchase price offered amounts at least to the estimated value set on the property prior to the auction (Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act and Chapter 12 Section 3 of the Code of Enforcement).   This estimated value is to be fixed by the Enforcement Office or, in case of a timely request by the owner of the property for a special valuation, by valuers appointed by the County Administrative Board (Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act).   41.      Decisions by the Enforcement Office in respect of a public auction may, according to Chapter 18 Section 1 of the Code of Enforcement, be brought before a Court of Appeal and, ultimately, the Supreme Court.   However, according to Section 6 para. 2 of the same Chapter, an appeal against a decision merely constituting a preparation for a future determination may, in general, be made only in connection with an appeal against that determination.   42.      As regards the procedure in case an appeal is made, the rules of the 1942 Code of Judicial Procedure (rättegångsbalken) are, as far as relevant, applicable by virtue of a reference in Chapter 18 Section 1 of the Code of Enforcement.   Under Chapter 52 Section 10 of the Code of Judicial Procedure a party or any other person may, when this is deemed necessary, be heard by the Court of Appeal.           Chapter 52 Section 10 first sentence reads:           (Swedish)           "Finnes för utredningen erforderligt, att part eller annan         höres muntligen i hovrätten, förordne hovrätten därom på         sätt den finner lämpligt."           (English translation)           "Where it is required for the purposes of the investigation of         a case that a party or other person be heard orally by the         Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal shall decide on such a         hearing as it sees fit."   III.     SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES   A.       The applicants   a.       Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention   43.      The applicants consider that the compulsory public auction on 19 June 1986 constitutes a violation of their property right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.           The applicants were deprived of their possessions within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as a result of the sale of their property at the public auction.   The applicants contest the Government's submission that this interference was justified under the terms of Article 1.   They find no fair balance between the demands of the alleged public interest concerned and the necessity to protect the applicants' fundamental rights.   On the contrary, the public sale was planned by the administration in order to place an excessive burden on the applicants in a discriminatory manner, both absolutely and in comparison with the previous owner and the subsequent owner.   The Government use the concept "public sale" and "auction" in a deceitful way when they describe the way in which the property was taken away from the applicants on 18 June 1985.   The price had already been fixed by the County Agricultural Board at 172,000 SEK without appeal.   Nobody was allowed to make bids except the County Agricultural Board which, for security reasons, prior to the public sale had refused to grant any of four serious prospective buyers a permit to acquire the real estate in question.   44.      When they bought Risböke 1:3 at the compulsory public auction in December 1979 the applicants were in no way gambling.   In view of the known circumstances at the auction, the applicants considered the special permit to retain the estate as a pure administrative formality.   They still find the fact that they were finally not allowed to retain Risböke 1:3 to be the result of a series of discriminatory, capricious and, from an objective point of view, unpredictable administrative "interpretations" or rather deliberate administrative misinterpretations of the Land Acquisition Act.   45.      A prerequisite for considering Risböke 1:3 as a "rationalisation unit" - a consideration which could have made the purchase hazardous - was that an estate assessed as a nucleus estate (kärnfastighet) could be found in the close vicinity.   The applicants were unable to consider the estate Tiböke 1:9 as equivalent to a nucleus estate.   46.      Tiböke 1:9 was at the time of the compulsory public auction owned by August Borg, born in 1899 and the father of Michael Borg and Thorwald Borg.   He did not personally run either agriculture or forestry on his estate; the woods of the estate were neglected to a high degree and the agriculture, concentrated on milk production, was let out on lease to his son Michael Borg.   This ownership situation, including the natural possibility for a sudden change with a most uncertain result - there being at least four sons and daughters, heirs and heiresses - made it difficult to consider Tiböke 1:9 a nucleus estate.           Furthermore, Michael Borg's agricultural business with its concentration on milk production seemed - in the light of the overproduction of milk in Sweden and the official propaganda for subsidised curtailment of such production - highly unfit for making a nucleus estate out of Tiböke 1:9.           Also most of the very fundamental milk production equipments were lacking on Tiböke 1:9.   From these facts the applicants were allowed to draw the conclusion that Tiböke 1:9 should not be classified as a nucleus estate and for that reason should not be considered a "rationalisation unit".           In addition, there were no economy buildings on Tiböke 1:9 at the time.   Consequently, any true agricultural activity on that property would require substantial investments which from a financial point of view would be completely irresponsible.   47.      Moreover, the County Agricultural Board had given no information to the effect that Risböke 1:3 might be considered an efficiency improvement estate or "rationalisation unit".   Consequently, the applicants were justified in concluding that the permit approving their purchase of Risböke 1:3 would be a pure formality.           The basic reasons for refusing the applicants a permit to retain Risböke 1:3 were indicated in a statement by Mr.   Viking Karlsson dated 14 January 1980.   The applicants conclude from that statement that Mr.   Karlsson had not properly examined the quality of Risböke 1:3 before issuing that statement.   48.      Concerning the bidding at the compulsory public auction in December 1979 the applicants submit that the bids given were as follows:     Michael Borg .............................   220,000 SEK (his final bid) Bertil Bjarnhagen ........................   225,000 SEK Applicants ...............................   230,000 SEK Bertil Bjarnhagen ........................   235,000 SEK (his final bid) Applicants ...............................   240,000 SEK (decisive bid)           This series of bids on 4 December 1979 constitutes the free market price of Risböke 1:3.   49.      At a compulsory public auction like the one on 4 December 1979 when the Swedish State appears as the formal seller there is no price control.   Such a control could have a negative influence on the State's prospects to get full compensation for unpaid taxes when an estate is compulsorily sold to cover the owner's unpaid taxes.           However, later on, when the private buyer is refused the permit on the ground that for "rationalisation" purposes someone else should have the estate it is also alleged by the same administration that the Swedish public interest requires from the buyer not only a forced public auction sale where he is finally deprived of his ownership but also that he shall pay an individual contribution to such a "rationalisation" by selling at an artificial price, arbitrarily lower than his bid at the previous compulsory public auction.   50.      The whole procedure causes economic losses for the private buyer/seller.   This system has been introduced to provide the State with a double guarantee, namely a) a guarantee for an extraordinary proper payment of taxes and other public fees to the State and b) a guarantee for the cheapest possible accomplishment of administratively decided real estate "rationalisations" in complete ignorance of realities.   The fate of the applicants proves that the system does not aim at creating anything like a fair balance either between contradictory interests in general or in particular in the distribution of losses and gains among the parties involved.   The applicants were not given 172,000 SEK for Risböke 1:3 but 156,000 SEK (= 172,000 - 16,000 SEK) after the costs for the sale had been subtracted from the administratively fixed purchase-price, 172,000 SEK.   51.      Under Article 14 of the Convention the applicants submit that they have been seriously discriminated against in relation to both Arthur Svensson (the seller at the auction in 1979) and Michael Borg and Thorwald Borg (the final acquirers of Risböke 1:3), not to mention the County Agricultural Board as the buyer of the real estate in question at the alleged "public auction" on 18 June 1985.   52.      Risböke 1:3 was in 1985 - when the applicants were forced to sell it - a different real estate from that which existed in 1979 when the applicants bought it.   By 1985 it had been improved by the skilled forestry of the applicants.   In close co-operation with the National Board of Forestry (skogsvårdsstyrelsen), the applicants had accomplished clearances, thinning out and final loggings together with subsequent plantations.   53.      It is obvious that the Agricultural Board concentrated on causing the applicants as much harm and economic losses as possible in connection with the forced sale of Risböke 1:3.   If the Board had had the intention to create a "fair balance" it could have a) bought the property at the forced "public auction" on 18 June 1985 for at least the same price as at the public auction in 1979 and b) under the period of its ownership of the property - June to December 1985 - instituted a registered right to log through thinning out Christmas trees on the property in favour of the applicants for five years. After those years the applicants would have had a fair chance to secure a reasonable profit out of their silviculture on the property as the legal owners and the new owners would be in the possession of a strongly developing, nice young spruce wood without any efforts of their own and at a low price.   54.      When Risböke 1:3 was to be sold in June 1985 at an alleged "public auction", the price was already fixed at 172,000 SEK. For that reason the Agricultural Board was legally allowed to grant the designated future owners, Michael Borg and Thorwald Borg, a special land acquisition permit.   This permit was issued on the condition that the licensees should ask within two months after the public auction for a real estate merger of Risböke 1:3 and Tiböke 1:8 and 1:9.   However, Michael Borg, who at the compulsory public auction in 1979 was prepared to pay 220,000 SEK for Risböke 1:3, refused to buy the estate for 172,000 SEK, thereby making a complete fool out of the Agricultural Board.   In this situation, where the Board could obviously no longer allege any local interest for buying Risböke 1:3, it had to buy the estate itself, since the prestige of the Board forbade it to declare the auction void and allow the applicants to retain the estate.   However, in this situation it was impossible for Michael Borg   and Thorwald Borg to fulfil the above mentioned condition for their permit.   From an objective point of view this should have meant that two months after the forced public auction on 18 June 1985 the permit of Michael Borg and Thorwald Borg should have been declared void and the Agricultural Board, incapable of finding any local interest in acquiring Risböke 1:3, should have sold the estate back to the applicants.   Instead, the Board started to bargain with the two brothers Borg and finally sold Risböke 1:3 to them for the subsidised price of 125,000 SEK in December 1985.   55.      The applicants submit that at the relevant time the alleged "only active farmer in the region" Michael Borg was not running any farming or forestry business on Tiböke 1:9.   This submission is supported by the fact that he was not accounting for any earnings from farming during 1984, 1985 or 1986 and that the real estate tax assessment of 1984 records the Tiböke 1:9 value as to stables, cow-house and barn as being nought.   56.      The applicants made two critical remarks about the three valuations which preceded the public sale in June 1985 (cf. para. 27). First, the site quality of the estate was underestimated as being only half of the real quality and, secondly, the comprehensive forestry on the property in which the applicants engaged during 1980-1983, including the planting of roughly 26,000 spruce plants, was ignored, although all those plants were on the spot before the valuations were made in 1984.   These plants could easily give the landowner a net income of more than 300,000 SEK, within a few years, depending on the high site quality and the very intensive forestry and the hard work of the applicants and their family members for which they received no compensation.           Taking into account this extraordinary high net income within only a few years and the fact that after this necessary thinning out the landowner will possess a fertile soil with widespread and strongly grown young trees for timber, the applicants find it shocking that the Government and the Supreme Court forced them to sell for 172,000 SEK in 1985 what they had bought in 1979 for 240,000 SEK.   57.      In the follow up of the forced auction on 18 June 1985 the applicants find some other revealing features of the Government's "public interest", namely that the County Agricultural Board, in the four cases of rejected applications for a permit to acquire the property at the public sale of June 1985, insisted on the unrealistic valuation of the estate and that after the forced sale in June 1985 the County Agricultural Board sold the property for 125,000 SEK to the two brothers Michael Borg and Thorwald Borg who were prepared to buy exactly the same property at the compulsory auction in December 1979 for 220,000 SEK.   58.      In the applicants' view there can only be one reason for the County Agricultural Board to maintain its absurd valuation of the property amounting to 86,000 SEK. If that valuation could be accepted as the starting point it may appear as if the applicants were decently compensated, instead of ruthlessly underpaid in a discriminatory manner, when they were allowed to get 172,000 SEK at the compulsory auction in June 1985, and at the same time it may appear as if the subsequent buyers Michael Borg and Thorwald Borg had to purchase the property at a normal market price when as a matter of fact they were considerably subsidised.   The applicants are certain that all this   happened in the so-called Swedish public interest.   However, the applicants submit that the argument as to the Swedish public interest is a most risky one.   The Land Acquisition Act was enacted in order to implement some new agricultural guidelines and to meet policy goals of forestry and regional planning.   Soon after the enforcement of this Act the publi