CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 7 juin 1990

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                        AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 12887/87                       by H.M.                       against Sweden             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 7 June 1990, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   G. SPERDUTI                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                   J.-C. GEUS                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 6 April 1987 by H.M. against Sweden and registered on 4 May 1987 under file No. 12887/87;           Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having regard to the Government's written observations of 17 April and 17 August 1989 and the applicant's observations of 9 June and 29 September 1989;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The facts of the case, as they appear from the parties' submissions, may be summarised as follows.           The applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1931 and resident at Uppsala.   He is a manager by profession.           The applicant is the owner of a property, Fålhagen 37:2.   On 22 March 1984 the Building Committee (byggnadsnämnden) of Uppsala granted the applicant's neighbour a permit to build a house (ateljébyggnad) on his property, Fålhagen 37:6; it accorded an exemption from the provisions of Sections 39 and 67 of the Building Ordinance (byggnadsstadgan) and Section 34 of the Building Act (byggnadslagen).           The applicant appealed against this decision to the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen) of the Uppsala County.   In his appeal the applicant alleged that the building would have negative consequences for his property (insight) and that the Building Committee had dealt with the matter incorrectly.   On 25 February 1985 the County Administrative Board rejected the appeal.   From the Board's decision it appears that the neighbour's house is located 25 metres from the applicant's.   In conclusion the Board found that the neighbour's building could not involve such considerable disadvantages for the applicant's property that it would not have to be accepted in central town blocks.           The applicant appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) of Stockholm which, on 18 April 1986, decided that, since the case concerned not only the question of a building permit but also the question of exemption from building prohibitions, the entire case should be determined by the Government.   As regards the building permit, the Court expressed the opinion that the applicant had submitted no valid reason for a refusal of the building permit.           On 23 October 1986 the Government (the Ministry of Housing) rejected the applicant's appeal.   COMPLAINTS   1.       The applicant submits that the decision of the Building Committee is an interference with his civil rights.   The decision was arrived at in manifest breach of the applicable town plan and the building legislation.   Since the dispute over the neighbour's building permit cannot be examined by a court there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention.   2.       The applicant also alleges a violation of Article 13 of the Convention since no effective remedy was available to him.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 6 April 1987 and registered on 4 May 1987.           On 13 December 1988 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government and invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.           The Government's observations were received by letter dated 17 April 1989 after an extension of the time limit and the applicant's observations were dated 9 June 1989.           The Government submitted further comments by letter dated 17 August 1989 and a further letter from the applicant was dated 29 September 1989.   THE LAW           The applicant complains that he did not have access to court for determination of the dispute which arose over the neighbour's building permit, which implied an exception from the relevant rules. He invokes Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention, which in its first sentence of the first paragraph (Art. 6-1) reads:   "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."           The applicant also invokes Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention, which guarantees the right to a effective remedy in respect of alleged violations of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention or its Protocols.           The Government submit that no "right" of the applicant was affected by the decision to grant his neighbour a building permit.   The decision did not determine any of the applicant's "civil rights" and hence Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention did not apply to the proceedings.   Consequently, the complaint under Article 6 (Art. 6) is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention.           The Commission considers that the issues to be decided are whether the decision to grant the neighbour an exemption from certain provisions of the building legislation and a building permit 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 these questions.   In the affirmative, it would have to be determined whether the applicant had at his disposal a procedure satisfying the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) in regard to that dispute.           After an examination of these issues in the light of the parties' submissions, the Commission considers that they raise questions of fact and law which are of such a complex nature that their determination requires an examination of the merits.   The application cannot therefore be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention and no other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.           For these reasons, the Commission           DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE         without prejudging the merits of the case.     Secretary to the Commission                President of the Commission               (H.C. KRUGER)                               (C.A. NØRGAARD)