CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 10 avril 1991

.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. 12032/86   Carsten JACOBSEN   against   SWEDEN   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 10 April 1991)   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    page   I.       INTRODUCTION         (paras. 1-21) ........................................     1           A.       The application                 (paras. 2-4) .................................     1           B.       The proceedings                 (paras. 5-16) ................................     1           C.       The present Report                 (paras. 17-21) ...............................     2     II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS         (paras. 22-74) .......................................     4           A.       The particular circumstances of the case                 (paras. 22-44) ...............................     4           B.       Relevant domestic law                 (paras. 45-74) ...............................     6                   a.       Legislation on construction and urban                         planning (paras. 45-47) ..............     6                   b.       Plans and regulations for non-planned                         areas (paras. 48-58) .................     7                   c.       Building prohibitions                         (paras. 59-61) .......................     8                   d.       Application for a building permit                         (paras. 62-65) .......................     8                   e.       Appeals against decisions                         (paras. 66-70) .......................     9                   f.       Supervisory functions and sanctions                         (paras. 71-74) .......................     9   III.     OPINION OF THE COMMISSION         (paras. 75-107) ......................................    11           A.       Complaints declared admissible (para. 75) ....    11           B.       Points at issue (para. 76) ...................    11           C.       Article 1 of Protocol No. 1                 (paras. 77-92) ...............................    11           D.       Article 6 of the Convention                 (paras. 93-100) ..............................    14           E.       Article 13 of the Convention                 (paras. 101-103) .............................    15           F.       Articles 17 and 18 of the Convention                 (paras. 104-106) .............................    15           G.       Recapitulation (para. 107) ...................    15     APPENDIX I       :   HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ................    16   APPENDIX II      :   DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY .............    18   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 is a Swedish citizen born in 1920 and resident at Falkenberg.   He is retired.   Before the Commission the applicant is represented by Mr.   Peter Westdahl, a lawyer practising in Gothenburg.   3.       The application is directed against Sweden.   The Government were initially represented by their Agent Mr.   Hans Corell, Under-Secretary for Legal and Consular Affairs at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Stockholm.   As from 23 January 1991 the Government are represented by their Agent Mr.   Carl Henrik Ehrenkrona, legal adviser at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.   4.       The case relates to a set of building prohibitions on the applicant's property.   Such prohibitions were, with some short interruptions, in force from 1 August 1972 until 30 June 1987.   The applicant complains that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has been violated as a result of the total duration of the prohibitions.   He further alleges violations of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention since he could not have a dispute over the lawfulness of one of the prohibitions examined by a tribunal.   He finally alleges violations of Articles 17 and 18 of the Convention.   B.      The proceedings   5.       The application was introduced on 19 January 1986 and registered on 10 March 1986.   6.       On 2 May 1988 the Commission decided to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.   7.        The Government's observations were submitted on 17 August 1988.   After an extension of the time-limit the applicant's observations in reply were submitted on 16 October 1988.   The Government submitted further observations on 12 December 1988.   8.       On 16 December 1988 the applicant was granted legal aid.   9.       On 13 March 1989 the Commission declared the application admissible and adjourned its examination until the European Court of Human Rights had delivered judgment in the Allan Jacobsson case (Application No. 10842/84).   10.      On 18 April 1989 the text of the decision on admissibility was communicated to the parties, in accordance with Rule 43 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.   11.      On 14 November 1989 the parties were invited to submit further written observations in the light of the Court's judgment in the Allan Jacobsson case (Eur.   Court H.R., judgment of 25 October 1989, Series A No. 163).   12.      The Government's further observations were submitted on 10 January 1990.   13.      On 10 February 1990 the Commission adjourned the examination of the application pending the outcome of the cases of Mats Jacobsson (Application No. 11309/84) and Skärby (Application No. 12258/86) before the Court.   14.      On 12 September 1990 the parties were invited to submit further written observations in the light of the Court's judgments in the cases of Mats Jacobsson (Eur.   Court H.R., judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A 180-A) and Skärby (Eur.   Court H.R., judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A 180-B).   15.      The Government's further observations were submitted on 19 October 1990.   After two extensions of the time-limit the applicant's further observations were submitted on 14 December 1990.   Further observations were submitted by the Government on 7 February 1991.   16.       After declaring the case admissible the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (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' reaction the Commission now finds that there is no basis upon which such a settlement can be effected.   C.       The present Report   17.      The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:                MM.   C. A. NØRGAARD, President                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   G. SPERDUTI                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A. WEITZEL                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ RUIZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                   J.-C. GEUS                   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                   B. MARXER     18.      The text of this Report was adopted by the Commission on 10 April 1991 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   19.      The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is: i)       to establish the facts, and   ii)      to state an opinion as to whether the facts found         disclose a breach by the State concerned of its         obligations under the Convention.   20.      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 as Appendix II.   21.      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.      The particular circumstances of the case   22.      In 1963 the applicant bought a property of 12,820 m2 called Skrea 5:15 and located in the municipality of Falkenberg.   The property had been created in 1935 for dwelling purposes.   In 1937 a leisure house had been erected on the property.   23.      No detailed plan had been established for the area in which the property is situated and, consequently, regulations for non-planned areas (utomplansbestämmelser) were applicable.   24.      On 21 August 1969 the Building Committee (byggnadsnämnden) of Falkenberg granted the applicant a building permit for a one-family house of 200 m2 to be constructed on the property.   The building permit was granted on condition that the leisure house would be pulled down when the new building had been erected.   25.      Following the erection of the one-family house in 1969-1970 the Building Committee, on 10 November 1971, rejected a request by the applicant to be relieved of the obligation to pull down the leisure house.   The applicant was ordered to pull it down within three months from the decision having been served upon him.   26.      On 8 December 1971, following a new request by the applicant, the Building Committee quashed its previous injunction and allowed the house to remain intact until further notice, however, not beyond 15 October 1973.   27.      On 26 May 1972 the applicant requested permission to erect a wind shelter between the new building and the leisure house.   The applicant argued that his wife needed the leisure house for her handicraft and weaving activities.   28.      By decision of 5 July 1972 the Building Committee rejected the applicant's request.   29.      From 1 August 1972 until 30 June 1987 building prohibitions were, with some short interruptions, in force within the area to which the applicant's property belongs.   The prohibitions were issued by the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen) of the County of Halland under Section 109 of the 1947 Building Act (byggnadslagen, "the 1947 Act"), pending the adoption of a building plan.   30.      Building prohibitions were issued for the following periods:        (date of decision by the     County Administrative Board)    (prohibition valid until)            1 August    1972               31 December 1972         30 December 1972               31 December 1974         22 November 1974               31 December 1976         30 December 1976               31 December 1978         26 January   1979               31 December 1980         17 February 1981               31 December 1982         18 January   1983               31 December 1984         15 January   1985               31 December 1986         13 January   1987               30 June      1987   31.      In 1975 the applicant's wife acquired half of the applicant's property Skrea 5:15 by virtue of a partition of the joint estate of the spouses.   32.      In May 1981, the applicant's wife requested a building permit for an addition to the leisure house of "approximately 3,5 m" (building surface about 14 m2).   33.      On 17 June 1981 the Building Committee rejected the request, referring to the regulations for non-planned areas and the building prohibition and finding no basis for an exemption from the prohibition or the granting of a building permit.   34.      The applicant's wife's appeal to the County Administrative Board was rejected on 1 October 1982.   The County Administrative Board stated that the requested addition would, under Section 75 of the 1959 Building Ordinance (byggnadsstadgan; "the 1959 Ordinance") be tantamount to a new construction and contrary not only to the building prohibition under Section 109 of the 1947 Act, but also to the prohibition under Section 56 of the 1959 Ordinance to grant permits which would result in urban development (tätbebyggelse) within an area not covered by a town plan or a building plan.   35.      The applicant's wife appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) of Gothenburg, which on 6 April 1984 decided to refer the matter to the Government for decision, since the case concerned both the issue of a building permit and that of an exemption from a building prohibition and since the latter question was to be decided by the Government.   In its opinion, the Administrative Court of Appeal stated inter alia that decisions which had gained legal force already existed, to the effect that the leisure house was to be pulled down and that no building permit could be granted.   36.      The appeal was rejected by the Government on 6 September 1984.   37.      On 20 December 1984 the applicant's wife requested inter alia an exemption from the building prohibition and a building permit for the leisure house.   38.      On 15 January 1985 the County Administrative Board issued a building prohibition similar to the previous ones pending the adoption of a proposal for a building plan or an amendment to a building plan. The prohibition was valid until 31 December 1986 (cf. para. 30).   The reasons for the request for a building prohibition, as submitted by the municipality of Falkenberg (the Building Committee), were inter alia the following: In the area there existed building plans which permitted buildings exceeding 80 m2.   The intention was to change all the building plans so as to comply with the guidelines issued by the Building Committee on 15 March 1984.   Moreover, in certain areas planning work was going on.   39.      The applicant appealed against this decision to the Government (the Ministry of Housing and Physical Planning), alleging that for more than fifteen years he had been prevented from the enjoyment of his property.   40.      On 24 January 1985 the Building Committee rejected the applicant's wife's request of 20 December 1984.   The subsequent appeal to the County Administrative Board was rejected on 2 October 1985.   41.      In its opinion of 19 September 1985 on the applicant's appeal against the building prohibition issued on 15 January 1985 the Building Committee stated the following: "The question of a prohibition on new constructions for 'the Southern Coastal Area' ('Södra kustbygden') was raised by the Building Committee on 26 January 1972 ...   The area was the subject of area planning which was to be followed up by detailed planning.   The delimitation of the prohibition area was decided in consultation with the County Architect (länsarkitekten).   Within the prohibition area continuous detailed planning is going on.   Whenever detailed plans are established within the area, the prohibition area has been reduced accordingly.   The property Skrea 5:15 is affected by the ongoing detailed planning of the property Skrea 5:3 and other properties.   The planning partly relates to the extension of the current camping site within the area of Hansagård and partly to a re-allocation of the road Strandvägen ...   For the moment investigations as to the allocation of the road are being carried out."   42.      In his further observations to the Government of 4 October 1985 the applicant alleged inter alia that the Building Committee had grossly misused the building prohibitions and prevented him and his wife from the peaceful enjoyment of their property.   He further alleged that the Building Committee had, in its efforts to interfere with the applicant's private property, given false information to superior authorities and courts.   43.      On 17 October 1985 the Government rejected the appeal, considering that the planning situation in the area justified a prolongation of the building prohibition.   44.      The leisure house was removed from the property in October 1985.     B.      Relevant domestic law   a.      Legislation on construction and urban planning   45.      A property owner's right to erect buildings on his property was up to 1 July 1987 regulated in the 1947 Act and the 1959 Ordinance.   46.      Section 1 of the 1947 Act provided that construction on property required a building permit insofar as this followed from rules laid down by the Government.   Such rules were to be found in Section 54 of the 1959 Ordinance.   A permit was required for all new constructions, except certain buildings for public use, or smaller additions to existing residences and farms or smaller houses on such estates.   47.      Section 5 of the 1947 Act called for an examination of whether the property was suitable from a general point of view for building purposes.   Such examination should be carried out by planning procedure in accordance with the 1947 Act, except for areas classified as "non-urban" (glesbebyggelse) or as "urban developments on a smaller scale" (tätbebyggelse av mindre omfattning).   For the latter categories, the required examination could be made when an application for a building permit was examined. b.       Plans and regulations for non-planned areas   48.      Plans were to take due consideration of public as well as private interests.   A master plan (generalplan) encompassed the major guidelines within a municipality or a part of a municipality. A town plan (stadsplan) or a building plan (byggnadsplan) contained more detailed regulations on the development of the area.   For areas not regulated by town or building plans, the construction activities were regulated by the regulations for non-planned areas (utomplansbestämmelser) in the 1959 Ordinance.   49.      A master plan was to be drawn up by the municipality when necessary for the guidance of further detailed planning regarding the structuring and developing of the community.   At the request of the municipality, the master plan could be confirmed (fastställd) by the County Administrative Board.   Complete master plans were seldom deemed necessary.   Instead, municipalities tended to meet their planning needs by using simpler, less detailed plans, usually described as area plans (områdesplaner).   Such plans were not governed by law.   50.      The Government could decide that a master plan was to be prepared, when needed to further a development which was deemed urgent in the national interest.   51.      A master plan could not cover an area which was already covered by a town or a building plan.   52.      A town plan was 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 had to contain information about blocks of buildings (byggnadskvarter), public areas (allmänna platser), and special zones, such as railway areas, harbours, recreational (sports) areas, etc.   The town plan also had to contain further provisions regarding constructions in various areas, or regarding the use of properties in these areas.   The 1959 Ordinance mentioned 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.   53.      A town plan was to be confirmed by the County Administrative Board in order to become valid.   54.      If a municipality failed to draw up a town plan, although there was a need for it, the Government could order the municipality to present such a plan for the Government's approval within a fixed time-limit.   55.      A town plan gave the municipality a right to redeem areas necessary for public use.   The redemption value was decided by the Real Estate Court (fastighetsdomstolen), and was to be assessed according to the rules laid down in the Expropriation Act (expropriationslagen).   56.      If an area had become densely populated or if such a situation was expected to emerge in the area, but this situation did not call for a town plan, a building plan had to be issued by the municipality, to the extent necessary for the regulation of the development of the area.   A building plan was largely the same as a town plan, but did not have as far-reaching legal consequences.   A building plan also had to be validated through a confirmation by the County Administrative Board, which could issue such a plan if the municipality had failed to produce one. 57.      The abovementioned categories of plans could be cancelled by decision of the County Administrative Board.   Such a decision had to take the interests of property owners into consideration.   58.      Regulations for non-planned areas prohibited constructions of new buildings, unless they were suitable in the general interest.   The same examination regarding general suitability was made, whether as part of the planning procedure or as part of the processing of an application for a building permit, for an area not covered by town or building plans.   c.       Building prohibitions   59.      Under Section 56 of the 1959 Ordinance, the authorities could not grant permits for new buildings, which would have resulted in urban development within an area which was not covered by a town plan or a building plan.   According to Section 75 of the 1959 Ordinance, the term "new building" also included additions to or the reconstruction of an already existing building.   The concept of "urban development" was defined in Section 6 of the 1947 Act as such concentrated building as would immediately or in the near future call for special installations for common needs (e.g. water supply, sewage systems and other utilities).   Section 56 of the 1959 Ordinance thus provided for a general building prohibition for certain areas.   This prohibition was applied in an extensive way.   60.      Under Section 109 of the 1947 Act the County Administrative Board could, if the question of the establishment of a building plan or of an amendment to such a plan had arisen, on the municipality's request issue a building prohibition pertaining to that area for a period of one year.   Such a prohibition could be prolonged at most for two years at a time.   Exemptions could be granted by the County Administrative Board or by the Building Committee.   61.      If a building plan or a part of such a plan could not be approved, the Government or, if the plan was to be approved by the County Administrative Board, the competent County Administrative Board issued such a building prohibition as was required by the circumstances.   d.       Application for a building permit   62.      A person, who wished to erect a building, for which a permit was required, had to file an application with the local Building Committee.   An application coming under any of the above building prohibitions was in practice considered as also including an application for exemption from the prohibition in question.   The applicant could, on the other hand, choose to apply for an exemption only, in order to apply for a permit when the matter of exemption had been resolved.   63.      The examination of an application for a building permit involved ascertaining that the intended building would not run counter to any confirmed plan, or, as the case might be, to the regulations of non-planned areas, or to a building prohibition, and that it satisfied technical demands on construction.   In the absence of such obstacles, a permit was to be granted.   64.      If the intended construction required an exemption of any kind, the Building Committee also had to take a decision on this matter.   In case the Committee lacked legal competence to do so, it would normally refer the application, as regards the exemption, to the County Administrative Board, suspending its decision on the permit issue, pending the outcome of the exemption issue.   65.      Under Section 58 subsection 2 of the 1959 Ordinance the Building Committee could combine a building permit for a new building with a condition prescribing that some other building in the relevant property unit was to be pulled down.   Such a condition could be made only if the Building Committee had found that it was necessary and if the applicant consented to it in writing.   If such a condition was not complied with, the Building Committee could, by virtue of Section 16 of the 1976 Act on Penalties and Public Intervention in the Event of Unauthorised Construction (lagen om påföljder och ingripanden vid olovligt byggande m.m.), enjoin the owner of a property to undertake that measure within a certain time.   Under Section 17 of the same Act, such an injunction could be combined with a fine or with an order stating that, unless the injunction was complied with, the measure in question could be carried out by the Building Committee at the person's own expense.   e.       Appeals against decisions   66.      Decisions by the Building Committee to refuse building permits and to refuse exemptions from building prohibitions could be appealed to the County Administrative Board.   67.      A decision by the County Administrative Board to reject an appeal against the Building Committee's decision refusing exemption from a building prohibition could be appealed to the Government. However, an appeal against a decision of the County Administrative Board to reject an appeal regarding an application for a building permit was to be lodged with the Administrative Court of Appeal.   A decision by the Administrative Court of Appeal could be appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten), which could refuse leave to appeal.   68.      A decision by the County Administrative Board which resolved both issues (the building permit and the exemption from the building prohibition) could be appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal. If the Court found that an exemption was not required, the matter was subsequently processed as a case relating only to the question of a building permit.   Otherwise the case was transferred to the Government together with an opinion on the permit issue.   69.      There was no limitation of the number of times a property owner could apply for building permits or exemptions from a building prohibition.   The authorities were obliged to examine the matter each time they were seized with an application.   70.      A decision by the County Administrative Board to issue a building prohibition or, as the first instance, to refuse an exemption from a building prohibition, could be appealed to the Government.   f.       Supervisory functions and sanctions   71.      The County Administrative Board supervised planning and construction activities - including those of the Building Committees - within the County.   The National Board of Physical Planning and Building (planverket) - a Government Agency - supervised the same fields on the national level.   72.      The Parliamentary Ombudsmen (justitieombudsmännen) supervised, on behalf of the Parliament, inter alia, the County Administrative Boards, and the Building Committees, to ensure that they acted according to laws and statutes.   The same supervision was, on behalf of the Government, carried out by the Chancellor of Justice (justitiekanslern).   Both these institutions could take action either on the basis of an application or on their proper initiative.   73.      None of these supervisory bodies could alter a decision by an authority.   The County Administrative Boards could, however, intervene by issuing prohibitions and injunctions.   Otherwise, a supervisory body could only point to committed errors, e.g. by referring a matter to the district prosecutor who could act upon it as he saw fit.   74.      Those who, in the course of their official duties, deliberately or through gross negligence disregarded their obligations as laid down in laws and statutes, could be fined or sentenced to prison by a court under Chapter 20 of the Penal Code (brottsbalken).   The Government and the municipalities were under certain conditions liable for damages, inter alia, for property damage, caused by fault or negligence in the exercise of public authority.   Civil claims of this kind were examined by the general courts.   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.       Complaints declared admissible   75.      The complaints declared admissible concern the lawfulness and duration of building prohibitions on the applicant's property and the absence of a court remedy in respect of one of them.   B.       Points at issue   76.      The issues to be determined are:   -        Whether there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Art. P1-1) to the Convention;   -        Whether there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1         (Art. 6-1) of the Convention;   -        Whether there has been a violation of Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention;   -        Whether there have been violations of Articles 17 and 18 (Art. 17, 18) of the Convention.   C.       Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1)   77.      Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) reads as follows:   "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.   No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.   The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."   78.      According to the Court's case-law, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Art. (P1-1) comprises three distinct rules.   The first rule, set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph, is of a general nature and enunciates the principle of peaceful enjoyment of property; the second rule, contained in the second sentence of the same paragraph, covers deprivation of possessions and makes it subject to certain conditions; and the third rule, stated in the second paragraph, recognises that Contracting States are entitled, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest.   The three rules are not "distinct" in the sense of being unconnected:   the second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule (Eur.   Court H.R., Allan Jacobsson judgment of 25 October 1989, Series A No. 163, p. 16, para. 53).   79.      According to the decision on admissibility, the only issue which the Commission has to examine in regard to Article 1 (Art. 1) is whether the building prohibitions which were in force from 1972 to 1987 violated the applicant's right under that Article.   In this respect, the Commission finds that the applicant was not "deprived" of his property within the meaning of the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 (Art. 1).   However, the building prohibitions constituted a measure of control of the applicant's property and thus fall to be considered under the second paragraph of this provision (above-mentioned Allan Jacobsson judgment, p. 16, para. 54).   80.      Under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) the Contracting States are entitled, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest by enforcing such laws as they deem necessary for the purpose.   However, there must exist a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised.   In striking the fair balance thereby required between the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights, the authorities enjoy a wide margin of appreciation (above- mentioned Allan Jacobsson judgment, p. 17, para. 55).   81.      The applicant alleges a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) on the ground that the building prohibitions were, with some short interruptions, in force for almost 15 years.   He submits that the total duration of these prohibitions was excessive and that he was prevented from the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.   He alleges that the prohibitions were not in accordance with the law and that the stated aim of the prohibitions, which was to facilitate the planning of a nearby road and camping site, was not the real reason.   Thus the prohibitions were not issued in the general interest.   82.      The Government submit that the building prohibitions were justified, since they were issued in the general interest in order to control the use of the applicant's property.   The Government further submit that, notwithstanding the existence of a building prohibition issued under Section 109 of the 1947 Act, construction of new buildings on the applicant's property was also hindered by a building prohibition under Section 56 of the 1959 Ordinance.   In view of the refusals of the applicant's wife's requests for a building permit in 1981 and 1984 it was most unlikely that the applicant would subsequently have been granted a building permit.   83.      The Commission recalls that the Convention organs' power to review compliance with domestic law is limited: it is in the first place for the national authorities to interpret and apply that law (cf. e.g.   Eur.   Court H.R., Tre Traktörer AB judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A No. 154, p. 23, para. 58).   84.      The Commission further notes that the first building prohibition regarding the applicant's property was issued by the County Administrative Board on 1 August 1972 and was valid until 31 December 1972.   It was subsequently prolonged on 30 December 1972, on 22 November 1974 and 30 December 1976, before the respective dates of expiry.   The last-mentioned prohibition was valid until 31 December 1978.   On 26 January 1979 the County Administrative Board issued a new building prohibition similar to the previous ones and valid until   31 December 1980.   Further prohibitions were issued on 17 February 1981 (valid until 31 December 1982), on 18 January 1983 (valid until 31 December 1984), on 15 January 1985 (valid until 31 December 1986) and on 13 January 1987 (valid until 30 June 1987).   85.      The above building prohibitions were issued under Section 109 of the 1947 Act.   They thus had a basis in Swedish law.   The prolongations of the prohibition were also provided for by the same section.   The Commission is thus satisfied that the building prohibitions were lawful.   86.      The Commission is also satisfied that the building prohibitions served the general interest.   It recalls that, in the increasingly complex and ever developing society of today, it is indispensable that the use of land be regulated by detailed and careful planning.   It follows that States must have instruments at hand in order to plan or regulate building activities (Sporrong and Lönnroth v.   Sweden, Comm.   Report 8.10.80, para. 111, Eur.   Court H.R., Series B No. 46, p. 50).   The 1947 Act and the planning procedure under it are in principle measures serving a general interest.   The Commission notes the applicant's allegations as to the aim of the prohibitions, but finds nothing to suggest that they were not issued in order to facilitate future planning, which purpose undoubtedly falls within the general interest as envisaged in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) (above-mentioned Allan Jacobsson judgment, p. 17, para. 57).   87.      The Commission therefore concludes that the building prohibitions were lawful measures which served a general interest.   88.      As regards the proportionality between the interference with the applicant's property rights and the aim pursued the Commission recalls that town planning is a complex procedure which requires considerable time.   The issuing of a building prohibition during the planning procedure constitutes an important measure to facilitate the planning, which in the interest of proper planning may have to be maintained for a considerable period (Allan Jacobsson v.   Sweden, Comm. Report 8.10.87, para. 135, Eur.   Court H.R., Series A No. 163, p. 28).   89.      The Commission observes that, since the applicant's property was situated in an area not yet covered by a town plan or a building plan, Section 56 of the 1959 Ordinance prevented the authorities from granting a building permit, if the construction would have resulted in urban development.   It has not, therefore, been shown that during the relevant period the authorities would have been obliged to grant the applicant a building permit, had the building prohibitions under Section 109 of the 1947 Act not been in force.   Thus, the Commission does not find it established that the building prohibitions deprived the applicant of any unconditional right to further construction on his property which he had enjoyed before.   90.      Moreover, the building prohibitions were only valid for one year with the possibility of renewal for periods of two years each. The need to maintain them was thus examined at regular intervals. Exemptions from a prohibition could be granted where the planning procedure would not be obstructed.   These review procedures provided a possibility for weighing the public interest against that of the individual (above-mentioned Allan Jacobsson judgment, pp. 18-19, para. 62).   Although concerned by the total duration of the building prohibitions at issue, the Commission considers, in view of the wide margin of appreciation enjoyed by the Contracting States in this area, that in the circumstances of the case the prohibitions were not disproportionate to their legitimate purpose.   91.      In view of the above considerations the Commission finds that the interference with the applicant's right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions was justified under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).   Conclusion   92.      The Commission concludes, by a unanimous vote, that there has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).   D.       Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention   93.      Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention reads, insofar as it is relevant, as follows:   "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal..."   94.      The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention since he could not have the dispute over the building prohibition issued on 15 January 1985 examined by a tribunal.   95.      The Government admit that the appeal proceedings preceding the Government's decision of 17 October 1985 were not a procedure which satisfied Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention and that there has been a violation of that provision.   96.      The Commission considers that the dispute over the building prohibition concerned the applicant's civil rights and that he was therefore entitled to enjoy the guarantees of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   97.      The Commission recalls that the building prohibition issued by the County Administrative Board was subject to appeal to the Government.   The applicant's appeal was rejected on 17 October 1985. No appeal lay against the Government's decision.   98.      It follows that the dispute in question was determined by the Government in the final resort.   The Government's decision was not open to review as to its lawfulness by either ordinary or administrative courts, or by any other body which could be considered to