CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 16 mars 1989

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS   Application No. 11309/84     Mats JACOBSSON   against   SWEDEN               REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 16 March 1989)   11309/84   - i -     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. 15-49) ............      4         A.   Particular circumstances of the case           (paras. 15-26) ....................................      4         B.   Relevant domestic law and practice           (paras. 27-49) ....................................      6             a.   Legislation on construction               and urban planning (paras. 27-29) .............      6             b.   Plans and regulations for               non-planned areas (paras. 30-36) ..............      6             c.   Building prohibitions               (paras. 37-42) ................................      7             d.   Formation of property units               (para. 43) ....................................      8             e.   Decisions and review of decisions               (paras. 44-49) ................................      8   III.   SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES (paras. 50-74) .............     10         A.   The applicant           (paras. 50-58) ....................................     10         B.   The Government           (paras. 59-74) ....................................     11   IV.    OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras. 75-102) .............     14         A.   Points at issue           (para. 75) ........................................     14   11309/84   - ii -           B.   Article 6 of the Convention           (paras. 76-97) ....................................     14             a.   Applicability of Article 6 para. 1               of the Convention (paras. 78-89) ..............     14                 aa.   Was there a dispute regarding a "right"?                    (paras. 79-86) ...........................     14                 bb.   Was the right "civil" in character?                    (paras. 87-89) ...........................     15             b.   Compliance with Article 6 para. 1               of the Convention (paras. 90-97) ..............     16         C.   Article 13 of the Convention           (paras. 98-100) ...................................     17         D.   Recapitulation           (para. 101) .......................................     17   Dissenting Opinion of Mr.   S. Trechsel joined by Mrs.   J. Liddy     18   Opinion dissidente de M. F. Martinez ....................         19     APPENDIX I :   HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ....................     22   APPENDIX II:   DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY .................     23     I.       INTRODUCTION   1.       The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.     A.       The application   2.       The applicant, Mr.   Mats Jacobsson, is a Swedish citizen born in 1953 and resident in Stockholm.   He is a journalist by profession. He is represented before the Commission by Mr.   Hasse W. Tullberg, a lawyer.   3.       The application is directed against Sweden.   The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Mr.   Hans Corell, Ambassador, Under-Secretary at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Stockholm.   4.       The case relates to a reduction in the possibilities for construction on the applicant's property arising from an amendment to a building plan (byggnadsplan) for the area in which his property is located.   The applicant complains that, whereas under the old plan he had a right to divide his property into two building plots, he now has no such right as a result of the amendment.   He alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention on the grounds that his rights under the building plan could not be examined at an impartial and public court hearing and that he did not have an effective remedy for the alleged violation of his rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention or its Protocol No. 1.     B.       The proceedings   5.       The application was introduced on 5 August 1984 and registered on 17 December 1984.   It was declared inadmissible on 8 October 1985 as 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, 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 16 January 1987 their observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of the application insofar as it related to the alleged violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.           The Government's observations were dated 15 January 1987 and the applicant's observations in reply were, after an extension of the time-limit, dated 9 April 1987.   6.       Legal aid under the Addendum to the Commission's Rules of Procedure was granted to the applicant on 16 October 1987.   7.       On 8 March 1988 the Commission decided to declare inadmissible the applicant's complaint that the decision to change the building plan violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   The remainder of the application, concerning the complaint under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the amendment to the building plan could not be examined at an impartial and public court hearing and that the applicant did not have an effective remedy for the alleged violation of his rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention, was declared admissible.   8.       The parties were then invited to submit any additional observations on the merits of the application which they wished to make.   9.       The Government submitted further observations on 13 June 1988 and the applicant submitted further observations by letter of 27 September 1988.   The observations of each party were transmitted to the other party for information.   The Government submitted further observations by letter of 24 November 1988.   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                   G. SPERDUTI                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A. WEITZEL                   J. C. SOYER                   H. G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              Mr.   F. MARTINEZ              Mr.   C. L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY           The text of the Report was adopted by the Commission on 16 March 1989 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 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 second decision on the admissibility of the application of 8 March 1988 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.      Since 1973 the applicant has owned a property, Tullinge 17:289 (previously Stg 3594), with an area of 2,079 m2.   It is situated in the municipality of Botkyrka, a suburb south of Stockholm.   On the property there is a small house.   16.      When the applicant acquired the property in 1973 the area was subject to a building plan which had been drawn up in 1938.   The 1938 building plan provided that no building plot should be less than 1,500 m2 in area.   As an exception it was provided that a plot with a smaller area, but no less than 1,000 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.   17.      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 the area in which the applicant's 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.   18.      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 County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen) of Stockholm County 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 period up to and including 1 September 1978 as well as during the periods 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.   19.      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.   20.      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.   21.      The applicant objected to the proposed building plan.   He alleged that the amendments were wrongly restricting construction, since they 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 of 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 (hälsovårdsnämnden), 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."   22.      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.   23.      The applicant then applied to the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten) for re-opening of the matter.   In a decision of 5 June 1984 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the application. The Court summarised the applicant's submissions as follows:   "In his application Mr.   Jacobsson requests that the Supreme Administrative Court examine the matter and invokes as grounds   therefor that the Government's decision was based on false statements and that the proposed plan was contrary to the law."   24.      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).   25.      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 exemptions from the building prohibition in force pursuant to Sections 109 and 110 of the Building Act.   26.      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 1,500 m2.     B.       Relevant domestic law and practice   a.       Legislation on construction and urban planning   27.      A property owner's right to erect buildings on his property was, up to 30 June 1987, regulated in the 1947 Building Act (byggnadslagen, "the 1947 Act") and the 1959 Building Ordinance (byggnadsstadgan, "the 1959 Ordinance").   As from 1 July 1987 a new Act, the 1987 Plan and Building Act (plan- och byggnadslagen), regulates this matter.   However, this Act is of no relevance in the present case.   28.      Section 1 of the 1947 Act provided that construction on property required a building permit to the extent required by Government regulations.   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.   29.      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 under a planning procedure in accordance with the 1947 Act, except for areas classified as non-urban (glesbebyggelse) or as "urban developments on a smaller scale" (tätbebyggelse av mindre omfattning).   For the latter categories, the required examination may be made when examining an application for a building permit.   b.       Plans and regulations for non-planned areas   30.      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.   31.      The development in areas covered only by older subdivision plans (avstyckningsplaner) is governed by these plans as well as regulations for non-planned areas (utomplansbestämmelser).   32.      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.   33.      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 regulation of the planning of the area (Section 107 of the 1947 Act).   34.      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.   35.      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.   36.      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 1947 Act).   c.       Building prohibitions   37.      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 1947 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.   38.      According to Section 110 para. 1 of the 1947 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.   39.      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.   40.      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.   41.      A building plan or a town plan can be altered if required. According to Section 23 of the 1959 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 stating the material conditions for alteration or confirmation.   Nor are there any regulations as to compensation in such situations.   42.      However, 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 1947 Act and Section 9 of the 1959 Ordinance).   d.       Formation of property units   43.      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 govern 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.   e.       Decisions and review of decisions   44.      A person, who wishes to erect a building, for which a permit is required, must file an application with the Building Committee.   An application coming under a building prohibition is in practice considered as also including an application for exemption from the prohibition in question.   The applicant may, on the other hand, choose to apply for an exemption only, with the intention to apply for a permit when the matter of exemption has been resolved.   45.      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 satisfies technical demands on construction.   In the absence of such obstacles, a permit should be granted.   46.      Decisions by the Building Committee to refuse building permits and exemptions may be appealed to the County Administrative Board.   47.      A decision by the County Administrative Board to issue a building prohibition or 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 may, however, be appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten).   Decisions by the Administrative Court of Appeal may be appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten), which may refuse to grant leave to appeal.   48.      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 relating only to the question of a building permit.   Otherwise the Administrative Court of Appeal will refer the matter to the Government for a decision.   The Court also makes a statement to the Government on the permit issue.   49.      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.   III.     SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES   A.       The applicant   50.      The applicant was entitled initially to build one house on his land and, later on, two houses, each with a plot of land of around 1,000 m2, provided either that he and his neighbours had arranged for a common water and sewage system or that the municipality had complied with its obligation to supply a common system.   51.      Swedish law assumed that this was the pattern of evolution, in accordance with the 1947 Act, for the 1938 building plan.   The applicant's right to build according to that plan was incontestable. Swedish authorities have, however, prevented him from using his right.   52.      First, this was done by imposing prolonged building prohibitions, since 1954, by methods which are regarded as an abuse of Swedish law.   These prohibitions have furthermore been in conflict with each other and have prevented the applicant from taking action, which he was subsequently considered, for example in the County Administrative Board's decision of 1983, to have neglected to carry out.   53.      As a result of the 1983 building plan, Swedish authorities finally prevented the applicant from using his previous building right.   The 1983 plan decisions were based on, inter alia, general policy plans, which according to the Swedish Constitution are not to be regarded as legally binding.   54.      These proceedings were covered by Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   55.      It was not in the public interest to deny the applicant the use of his land in a manner allowed to others in the same area.   In any case, the deprivation of his rights by means of illegal, prolonged building prohibitions, the denial of access to an impartial tribunal to examine his applications for exemptions, the denial of access to a tribunal for the appeal against the Building Committee's decisions etc., far exceed any public interest to have his land "in store" for whenever in the future the authorities decide to begin contemplating the need for a town plan.   56.      The aim given in the decision of the County Administrative Board - to protect possible interests to have the land in status quo until the day in an uncertain future when the land may be useful when making a town plan, the creation of which has not yet been decided upon - has no basis in law, but constitutes abuse of power.   57.      The Government's statement that the County Administrative Board and the Government are faster than a court implies that cases are not examined in the same thorough way by the County Administrative Board and the Government as they would be by courts.   58.      The inadequacies in Swedish procedural law, which have excluded the possibility of a court hearing on important issues in the applicant's case, have been a decisive factor in the occurrence of such   anomalies as the abuse of prolonged investigatory bans in combination with conflicting requests, by means of simultaneous technical bans, for completion of technical utilities (sewage, etc.).   Further, the municipality's economic interests have been unilaterally favoured without the balancing of interests, required by the Swedish Constitution.   Furthermore those interests have been based on informal plans, something which is also contrary to the Constitution.   B.       The Government   59.      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.   60.      The Government accept that the issue to be decided is whether the decision to adopt the proposal for amendments to the building plan for the area in which the applicant's property is situated was decisive for a "civil right" of the applicant and, if so, whether a dispute arose between the applicant and the Swedish authorities in relation to the adoption of the amendments.   61.       Since it is not possible to have decisions to adopt or confirm building plans examined by a tribunal, the Government accept that, if the Commission should find that such decisions involve the determination of a dispute relating to the applicant's civil rights within the meaning of the Convention, the applicant has had no access to a procedure satisfying the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.           However, the Government maintain, for the reasons set out below, that the decision here at issue does not involve the determination of a dispute concerning the applicant's civil rights.   62.      Planning decisions are dominated by considerations of public interest and determined principally by considerations of policy.   Such decisions fall outside the scope of Article 6.   This view is consistent with the wording of the text and 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.   63.      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.   64.      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.   65.      The possibility of having decisions on planning examined by courts is alien to the system of planning.   This system is based on the idea that the municipality is responsible for the use of land and for building within the municipality, and that state control of how the municipalities carry out their obligations shall be exercised by the County Administrative Board and the Government.   66.      Decisions on planning are carried out speedily by the County Administrative Boards and the Government, since such decisions often concern great economic interests of a public as well as a private nature, and even short delays can cause great losses.   As a rule, such decisions also concern a great number of persons.   If all such persons had the right to have decisions on planning examined by a court in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention, which inter alia 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, developers and others.   There is also an inherent risk that some persons 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.   67.      It follows from the above that planning decisions are not aimed at increasing or diminishing the values of private property. Rather, it is evident that in exercising their powers and duties the competent planning authorities are bound to take decisions which influence the individual's possibilities in using his property.   Such effects cannot, however, be considered a "determination of (his) civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of the Convention, as it is necessary to look to the real effect of such a decision in the concrete case and to whether there exists any right that originates from or is included in the property rights that might have been affected.   In addition, it is necessary to examine whether such a right, if it exists, may be regarded as a "civil right".   68.      It is the character of the "right" at issue which is relevant (Eur.   Court H.R., König judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27; Benthem judgment of 23 October 1985, Series A no. 97).   The nature of the right at issue, however, is to a considerable extent determined by national legislation, though an autonomous appreciation is made by the Convention organs.   69.      In the present case the applicant has alleged that the amendment of the plan deprived him of one of his two "building rights" which he contends to have had under the plan of 1938.   The Government find that the applicant's use of the expression "building right" is somewhat misleading.   The possibility to construct a building on one's property is not a separate right under Swedish law, nor does it form an inherent part of land ownership.   It follows from Section 5 of the 1947 Act that no land owner had a right to construct on his land under the said Act, but that his possibilities of doing this were subject to the appreciation made by the competent authorities on the basis of the relevant provisions of the 1947 Act and the 1959 Ordinance.   70.      The Government contend that the margin of appreciation afforded to the competent Swedish authorities, when deciding to introduce or amend a plan, to issue a building prohibition or an exemption therefrom under the 1947 Act, was so wide that no right of the land owner may be said to have existed which could be regarded as a "right" within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention.           In this case, it cannot be said that the applicant had a right to construct on his property before the plan was amended.   He still had to apply for a building permit and had to observe other obligations resting upon him as a land owner who wants to construct a new building on a new plot.   In order to create two separate plots on the area he also had to apply for a special permit which would be granted only if certain prerequisites were fulfilled.   The Government underline that, even if the plan had not been amended, the applicant still would have had no right to divide the area into smaller units; the prerequisites for such a measure were not fulfilled.   This can be seen from the decision of the County Administrative Board of 4 July 1983.   71.      Thus the decision to amend the plan was only one of several circumstances which were decisive for the possibility that the applicant might divide his plot into two and construct a new building thereupon.   This decision taken alone cannot be said to have been decisive for his "rights" in this regard.   72.      The Government conclude that, since the possibility of dividing property or of building does not under Swedish law form an inherent part of land ownership, no civil right was affected by the decisions now at issue.   73.      Consequently, the decisions taken by the competent authorities when altering the building plan did not determine a dispute which related to the applicant's "civil rights" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   74.      The Convention has not been incorporated into Swedish law in the sense that it can be directly applied by Swedish courts or other authorities.   However, a party is free to refer to the Convention when arguing a case, as for example when an appeal is taken against a decision of the County Administrative Board or any other authority. Such arguments must be taken into account when the authority concerned takes a decision and it is immaterial in this respect that a case is examined by an authority other than a court.   Although it is true that such an authority or court cannot express an explicit opinion regarding the interpretation of a provision in the Convention, it is submitted that such a competence is not required in order to fulfil the obligations arising from Article 13.   IV.      OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.       Points at issue   75.      The issues to be determined are :           -   whether Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention is applicable            to the dispute which arose over the amendment of the            building plan and, if so, whether there has been a violation            of this provision;           -   whether there has been a violation of Article 13 (Art. 13) of the            Convention.     B.       Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention   76.      Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) first sentence of the Convention reads as follows:           "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or         of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to         a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an         independent and impartial tribunal established by law."   77.      The applicant complains that there has been a violation of this provision on the ground that he did not have access to a tribunal satisfying the conditions of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) for the determination of his claims concerning the adoption of amendments to the building plan by the Swedish authorities.   The Government submit that the proceedings complained of did not involve the determination of any civil rights of the applicant and that, consequently, Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention is not applicable.   a.       Applicability of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention   78.      The applicability of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention depends on whether the applicant was seeking the determination of a dispute (French: "contestation") regarding a "right" and whether that "right" was "civil" in character.           aa. Was there a dispute regarding a "right"?   79.      Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) applies only to disputes ("contestations") over "rights and obligations" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law.   It does not in itself guarantee any particular content for "rights and obligations" in the substantive law of the Contracting States (cf.   Eur.   Court H.R., Lithgow and Others judgment of 8 J