CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 12 octobre 1992

.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. 18928/91                       by Anders FREDIN                       against Sweden         The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 12 October 1992, the following members being present:              MM.    C.A. NØRGAARD, President                  J.A. FROWEIN                  S. TRECHSEL                  E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  H. DANELIUS            Sir    Basil HALL            MM.    F. MARTINEZ                  C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                    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 9 April 1991 by Anders FREDIN against Sweden and registered on 9 October 1991 under file No. 18928/91;         Having regard to   -      the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of       the Commission;   -      the written observations submitted by the respondent Government       on 7 May 1992 and the applicant's observations in reply submitted       on 5 June 1992;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows: THE FACTS         The applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1944 and resident at Grödinge, Sweden. He is an agricultural engineer by profession and is represented before the Commission by Mr. Jan Axelsson, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.         The applicant and his wife have previously lodged with the Commission application No. 12033/86 regarding the withdrawal of a permit   to exploit a gravel pit and the absence of a court remedy in this regard. The proceedings ended with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 18 February 1991, in which the Court concluded that Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention had been violated but that there was no breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol either taken alone or in conjuntion with Article 14 of the Convention.         The facts of the present case, as submitted by the parties, are as follows.         The applicant and his wife own several parcels of land in the municipality of Botkyrka. On the land there is a farm and a gravel pit.         On 11 December 1963 the applicants' parents had been granted a permit to extract gravel from the pit, subject to certain conditions.         On 4 September 1969 the applicant acquired a fifth of the property. On 31 July 1977 the applicant and his wife acquired the remainder of the property, which thenceforth belonged as to two-thirds to the applicant and as to one-third to his wife.         On 14 April 1983 the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen) of Stockholm County transferred the exploitation permit to the applicant and his wife, while indicating that it intended to re-examine the permit question in 1983 with a view to a possible termination of the activities.         On 25 August 1983 the County Administrative Board notified the applicant and his wife that it was contemplating amending the permit so as to provide that exploitation of the gravel pit should cease by 1 June 1984.         On 19 December 1984 the County Administrative Board ordered, inter alia, that         (a) the exploitation of gravel should cease within three years, i.e. by the end of 1987, by which time the area should also be restored,         (b) as from the day of the decision further extraction from certain parts of the pit be prohibited.         On 12 December 1985 the Government (Ministry of Agriculture) dismissed an appeal against the County Administrative Board's decision. However, the validity of the permit was extended to 1 June 1988.         On 9 March 1987 the County Administrative Board adopted a restoration plan for the pit.           On 18 May 1987 The County Administrative Board rejected a new application made by the applicant for extraction of gravel. The decision was appealed to the Government which on 9 June 1988 dismissed the appeal. The Government ordered that the permit to extract gravel from the pit should be prolonged until 1 December 1988, at which date all activities should be terminated and the land be restored.         On 1 December 1988 extraction of gravel from the pit ceased.         The applicant applied for a special extraction permit in order to enable him to comply with the plan for the restoration of the ground. This request was rejected on 14 March 1989 by the County Administrative Board and his appeal against this decision was rejected on 21 June 1989 by the Government (Ministry of Environment and Energy).         The applicant then applied for a judicial review under the 1988 Act on Judicial Review of Certain Administrative Decisions (lag 1988:205 om rättsprövning av vissa förvaltningsbeslut). He argued that the Government's decision violated several rules of law. He had needed a permit in order to be able to comply with the restoration plan, and the refusal of a permit had prevented him from restoring the ground. The decision was therefore in conflict with Chapter 1 Section 9 of the Instrument of Government (regeringsformen) and the principle of objectivity contained therein. The decision of the County Administrative Board was also in conflict with the Nature Protection Act (naturvårdslagen) and with the principle of proportionality. Moreover, as the County Administrative Board had failed to answer his question as to what action he should take, he was a victim of denial of justice.         In the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten) he requested a public hearing which was refused by the Court. This decision was taken by three votes to two. The two dissenting judges stated, inter alia, that the Act on Judicial Review of Certain Administrative Decisions had been enacted in order to ensure that Swedish law complied with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights and that account should therefore be taken of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in regard to the requirement of a public hearing in Article 6 of the Convention. The two judges referred in this respect to the cases of Ekbatani (judgment of 26 May 1988, Series A No. 134) and Håkansson and Sturesson (judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A No. 171).         On 13 December 1990 the Supreme Administrative Court, basing itself on the applicant's written submissions and on a written declaration by the County Administrative Court, found that the Government's decision was not unlawful and rejected the applicant's request for the annulment of that decision.     COMPLAINT         The applicant complains that he was not afforded a fair and public hearing before the Supreme Administrative Court and alleges a violation of Article 6 of the Convention.       PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was lodged with the Commission on 9 April 1991 and registered on 9 October 1991.         On 6 January 1992 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government and to invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.         The Government submitted their observations on 7 May 1992. The applicant's observations in reply were submitted on 5 June 1992.     THE LAW         The applicant complains that he was not afforded a fair and public hearing before the Supreme Administrative Court and alleges a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.         Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, insofar as relevant, reads as follows:         "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 Government do not object to the case being declared admissible. As regards the merits of the case, the Government leave it to the Commission to clarify whether or not the way Swedish procedural law was applied in this case should be regarded as a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.         The Commission has made a preliminary examination of the case and considers that the application raises issues of such complexity as to justify an examination of the case on the merits. The application cannot therefore be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention. No other reason for declaring the application inadmissible has been established.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE     Secretary to the Commission                  President of the Commission           (H.C. Krüger)                                 (C.A. Nørgaard)