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   SECOND CHAMBER   Application No. 12526/86   Elsa BJÖRKGREN and Sture ED   against   SWEDEN   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 10 April 1991)   TABLE OF CONTENTS   INTRODUCTION .............................................    1     PART I:   STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ..........................    3     PART II: SOLUTION REACHED ................................    4   INTRODUCTION     1.       This Report relates to Application No. 12526/86 introduced against Sweden by Mrs.   Elsa Björkgren and Mr.   Sture Ed on 10 June 1986 under Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.   The application was registered on 10 November 1986.           The applicants were represented by Mr.   Jan Axelsson, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.           The Government of Sweden were represented by their Agent, initially Mr.   Hans Corell, Under-Secretary for Legal and Consular Affairs, and subsequently Mr.   Carl Henrik Ehrenkrona, Legal Adviser, both at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Stockholm.   2.       On 7 January 1991 the European Commission of Human Rights declared the application admissible insofar as it related to the applicants' complaint of absence of a court determination of the lawfulness of an expropriation permit regarding their property (Article 6 para. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention).   The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.   The Commission then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides as follows:   "In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to it:   a.       it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake together with the representatives of the parties an examination of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the Commission;   b.       it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in this Convention."   3.       On 8 April 1991 the Commission, having consulted the parties, decided to refer the application to the Second Chamber.   4.       The Commission (Second Chamber) found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 10 April 1991 it adopted this Report, which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.           The following members were present when the Report was adopted:           MM.      S. TRECHSEL, President of the Chamber                 G. SPERDUTI                 G. JÖRUNDSSON                 A. WEITZEL                 H.G. SCHERMERS         Mrs.     G.H. THUNE         Mr.      F. MARTINEZ         Mrs.     J. LIDDY         MM.      J.-C. GEUS                 M.P. PELLONPÄÄ       PART I   STATEMENT OF THE FACTS       5.       The original applicants were Swedish citizens living in Johanneshov and Stockholm, respectively.   Following the first applicant's death on 4 January 1990 the application was pursued by her husband and sole heir, Mr.   Tage Björkgren.   6.       The applicants owned real property in Nacka which they had acquired as a gift from their father in 1954.   7.       Previously, Regulations for Non-Planned Areas (utomplans- bestämmelser) had been introduced, requiring a permit for construction on the property.   Furthermore, a prohibition on construction (byggnadsförbud) had entered into force, preventing the construction of new buildings or major alterations of buildings resulting in urban development within an area not covered by a town plan or a building plan.   8.       On 18 February 1977 the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen) of Stockholm issued a prohibition on construction of all new buildings and valid for one year.   The prohibition was subsequently, with certain short interruptions, maintained in force for one or two years at a time until 30 June 1987.   9.       0n 13 June 1984 the Building Committee (byggnadsnämnden) of the municipality of Nacka issued a demolition order in respect of the dwelling-house on the applicants' property, finding that the poor condition of the house excluded repair.   10.      On 19 October 1987 the County Administrative Board granted the municipality of Nacka an expropriation permit regarding the applicants' property.   11.      On 28 April 1988 this decision was upheld by the Government on the applicants' appeal.   12.      Before the Commission the applicants complained that they could not obtain a court determination of the lawfulness under Swedish law of the prohibitions on construction, seen as a whole, or of the expropriation permit.   They further complained that the prohibitions on construction, seen as a whole, caused severe deterioration of their property and deprived them of its practical use; and that in combination with the demolition order, they interfered with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property; and, further, that the expropriation permit constituted a deprivation of their property. They finally complained that they did not have an effective remedy before a national authority for the alleged violations.   They invoked Article 6 para. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   PART II   SOLUTION REACHED     13.      Following its decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals they wished to make.   14.      By letter of 19 February 1991 the Agent of the Government submitted the following agreement reached between the applicants and the Government and approved by the Government on 14 February 1991.                                "SETTLEMENT     On 7 January 1991 the European Commission of Human Rights decided to declare admissible application No. 12526/86 lodged by Elsa Björkgren and Sture Ed against Sweden. After the death of Mrs.   Björkgren in 1990 her husband and sole heir Mr.   Tage Björkgren has pursued the application.   The Government, Mr.   Ed and Mr.   Björkgren have now reached the following friendly settlement on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention in order to terminate the proceedings before the Commission.   a)       The Government will pay the sum of SEK 10.000 to each of Mr.   Ed and Mr.   Björkgren.   b)       The Government will pay legal costs in the total amount of SEK 13.000 to Mr.   Ed and Mr.   Björkgren.   c)       Mr.   Ed and Mr.   Björkgren declare that they have no further claims in the matter.       This settlement is dependent upon the formal approval of the Government.     Stockholm, 6 February 1991               Stockholm, 7 February 1991     (signed)                                 (signed)   Carl Henrik Ehrenkrona                   Jan Axelsson Agent of the Swedish                     Counsel for Mr.   Ed and Government                               Mr.   Björkgren"       15.      The Commission (Second Chamber), at its session on 10 April 1991, noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement.   It further found, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly settlement had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.   16.      For these reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.       Secretary to the Second Chamber      President of the Second Chamber               (K. ROGGE)                              (S. TRECHSEL)