CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 10 octobre 1994

.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. 19761/92                       by Sulo ESKELINEN and 54 others                       against Finland         The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 10 October 1994, the following members being present:              MM.    C.A. NØRGAARD, President                  S. TRECHSEL                  A. WEITZEL                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            MM.    F. MARTINEZ                  C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  G.B. REFFI                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  J. MUCHA                  E. KONSTANTINOV                  D. SVÁBY                  G. RESS              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 29 January 1991 by Sulo ESKELINEN and 54 others against Finland and registered on 24 March 1992 under file No. 19761/92;         Having regard to :   -      reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the       Commission;   -      the observations submitted by the respondent Government on       5 April 1993 and the observations in reply submitted by the       applicants on 12 July and 10 October 1993 as well as on       15 June and 5 September 1994;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicants are set out in the Annex to the decision. They are owners of properties in the area of Koli. All individuals are Finnish citizens. Before the Commission the applicants are represented by the association "Pohjois-Karjalan Talous ja Luonto".         The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.   Particular circumstances of the case         At its unofficial evening session on 13 June 1990 the Government decided "in principle" (periaatepäätös, principbeslut) to create a natural park in an area of over 20 km2 within the boundaries of the city of Lieksa and, more precisely, the hills between Koli and Vesivaara as well as the islands in the lake of Purjeselkä in the Pielinen lake district.         On 22 November 1990 the Government, sitting in their capacity as Council of State (valtioneuvosto, statsrådet), decided to propose to the President of the Republic that he present a Government Bill regarding the establishment of the park. A draft Bill had been submitted for comments to, inter alia, the municipalities concerned. The municipalities had furthermore been requested to provide the owners of properties within the proposed so-called outline objective (tavoite- rajaus, åsyftad gränsdragning), i.e. the areas intended to be acquired for inclusion in the park, with an opportunity to submit their comments.         In the preamble to the relevant Bill submitted to Parliament by the President of the Republic on 23 November 1990 (hallituksen esitys 307/90, regeringens proposition 307/90) the Government stated, inter alia:         (translation from Finnish)         "It is proposed to create the Koli natural park ... within       an area of 1.135 hectares. ... The area to be protected is       owned by the State ... It is intended to extend the park to       about 2.500 hectares at a later stage. The final extent of       the park appears from the map annexed to this Bill. ..."         In the commentary to the Bill the Government referred to a regional plan (seutukaava, regionplan) confirmed by the Council of State in 1979, reserving 975 hectares of the Koli hill area and the islands in the Pielinen lake district as an area conservable in accordance with the 1923 Conservation Act (luonnonsuojelulaki 71/23, lag 71/23 om naturskydd; hereinafter "the 1923 Act"). Moreover, the Ministry for the Environment (ympäristöministeriö, miljöministeriet) had, in 1987, confirmed a decision by the City Council (kaupungin- valtuusto, stadsfullmäktige) of Lieksa to adopt a partial general plan (osayleiskaava, delgeneralplan) for the Koli hill area. The conservable area had, with the exception of the islands, been included in that plan.         In the commentary to the Bill the Government further stated, inter alia:         (translation from Finnish)         "... The Koli natural park is intended to be extended to       about 2.500 hectares in accordance with the map enclosed       with the Bill. This presupposes the acquisition of about       1.500 hectares of areas by the State ... It is ... the       intention to see to it that no activities significantly       affecting the natural state ... are being carried out       within the area to be acquired. In this respect it is       intended to apply the same practice as in respect of       private properties protected for natural park purposes on       the basis of other decisions of principle made by the       Government. The acquisition of the properties on which no       activities of the above-mentioned kind are being carried       out will take place at a later stage according to a       schedule separately agreed to by the conservation       authorities and the property owner. ..."         The map indicating the so-called outline objective did not specify the properties concerned.         According to the applicants, the outline objective covers an area forming part not only of the city of Lieksa, but also of the municipalities of Kontiolahti and Eno. With the exception of certain islands the area within the outline objective has not been reserved in the regional plan of 1979 as conservable areas. Moreover, apart from three property units and one island the partial general plan of 1987 only includes State properties. The area belonging to the city of Lieksa is covered by a partial general plan adopted by the City Council in 1986, the decision not having been confirmed by the Ministry for the Environment, and thus constitutes a so-called general plan of the first degree (for the legal effects of such a plan, see the jurisprudence of the Supreme Administrative Court below under "Relevant domestic law and practice", para. 5). In that plan only two sub-areas, namely the islands in the Purjeselkä lake district and a grove at Murhivaara have been reserved as conservable areas, the islands on the basis of the so-called ridge protection programme adopted by the Council of State in 1984 and the grove on the basis of the so-called grove protection programme adopted by the Council of State in 1989. A further area within the outline objective near the hill of Paimenenvaara is covered by a shore plan (rantakaava, strandplan) adopted by the City Assembly of Lieksa in July 1990. This plan reserves part of the area as a conservable one. As finally regards the areas within the outline objective situated in the municipalities of Kontiolahti and Eno, a partial general plan is being drawn up. In January 1991 there were five leisure houses within the outline objective.         In the course of the consideration of the Bill by Parliament both the Standing Parliamentary Committee for Constitutional Affairs (perustuslakivaliokunta, grundlagsutskottet) and the then Standing Parliamentary Committee for Legal and Economic Affairs (laki- ja talousvaliokunta, lag- och ekonomiutskottet) considered that the commentary to the Bill expressing the Government's intentions to extend the park area by acquiring private properties was not legally binding.         By a letter of 23 November 1990 to the County Administrative Board (lääninhallitus, länsstyrelsen) of Northern Karelia the Ministry for the Environment drew the Board's attention to Bill no. 307/90, according to which about 1.500 hectares of private properties were intended to be acquired in order for the park to achieve its final size. The Ministry therefore wished that the Board would promote voluntary property sales. Reference was also made to the Government's intention, as expressed in the Bill, to prevent any activity within the outline objective that would significantly change the natural state of the area. The Ministry continued:         (translation from Finnish)         "...In the extension of [the park area] [the County       Administrative Board] should (in Finnish "tulisi")       therefore rely on the principles applied with regard to the       implementation of other natural parks including private       properties [and established by] decisions of principle of       the Council of State. In this respect the Ministry refers       to the circular letter   of the Ministry of Agriculture and       Forestry (maa- ja metsätalousministeriö, jord- och       skogsbruksministeriet) of 14 April 1983 to the County       Administrative Boards. The Ministry [for the Environment]       is of the opinion that in the implementation of the Koli       Natural Park the principles stated in [that] letter shall       (in Finnish "tulee") be applied. As regards construction       within the proposed park area, sections 52 and 124 of the       1959 Building Decree [rakennusasetus 266/59,       byggnadsförordning 266/59; hereinafter "the 1959 Decree"],       as amended by Decree no. 480/90, shall be applied (in       Finnish "on noudatettava")...."         In its circular letter of 14 April 1983 the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry had stated, inter alia, the following:         (translation from Finnish)         "... In practice cases have appeared where drainage has       been carried out on private land [proposed to form part of       a natural park or a protected swamp]. In such cases it is       evident that the property owner will not take any measures       in order to have his property protected [under section 9 of       the 1923 Act] and that the property cannot be bought from       the owner before its value as a property to be protected       has significantly decreased. Such properties are therefore       normally to be acquired by means of expropriation under       section 18 para. 1 of [the 1923 Act]. ... Accordingly, also       the conditions for issuing an activity prohibition       (toimenpidekielto, åtgärdsförbud) under section 18,       subsection 2 are fulfilled. The County Administrative       Boards should (in Finnish "tulisi") therefore, having been       informed of ... drainage [taking place on a property],       immediately issue an activity prohibition. In respect of       properties located within the boundaries of a national park       an activity prohibition should (in Finnish "tulisi") also       be issued in situations where logging, taking of gravel or       construction not agreed to by [the Ministry] is being       carried out. [The Ministry] shall immediately be informed       of any prohibition on activity and will proceed to having       the property expropriated.       ...       Finally, the Ministry draws the Boards' attention to the       fact that, in the absence of an explicit request by [the       Ministry], the conditions under section 18, subsection 2 of       [the 1923 Act] warranting an activity prohibition are not       normally fulfilled in respect of any other areas than those       stated in the above [programmes for nature conservation]."         In a further circular letter of 3 October 1986 from the Ministry for the Environment to all County Administrative Boards,   Municipal Boards (kunnanhallitukset, kommunstyrelser) and Regional Planning Authorities the Ministry had stated that conservation programmes adopted by the Council of State shall (in Finnish "tulee") be taken into account in the planning in order to further the realisation of the programmes.         In February 1991 all applicants except applicant no. 15 lodged both an ordinary and an extraordinary appeal (kantelu, klagan) with the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen) against Bill no. 307/90. They submitted, in essence, that a prohibition on construction and other activities within the outline objective had entered into effect immediately upon the Government's decision of principle to establish the Koli Natural Park. The restrictions on the use of their properties had caused the appellants considerable financial damage. The inclusion of private properties in the park had only been mentioned in the Government's commentary to the Bill. The Parliament had, however, not been competent to examine the commentary to the Bill, but only the provisions of the proposed statute. Moreover, the ministerial "order" of 23 November 1990 had been written in an imperative form, leaving no room for discretion. Any subsequent measure taken by the regional and local administrative authorities could only amount to an enforcement of the decision of the Council of State to establish the outline objective. The legal effects of the outline objective were somewhat similar to those of certain planning decisions made in accordance with the 1958 Building Act (rakennuslaki 370/58, byggnadslag 370/58; hereinafter "the 1958 Act") and entailing an immediate de jure prohibition on construction. Considering all the elements together, the outline objective and the related restrictions on the applicants' use of their properties had become de facto binding on 23 November 1990, although in the absence of any legal basis. Finally, despite its alleged effects on their properties the applicants had neither been heard prior to the decision nor had they received subsequent notification of it.         On 6 February 1991 applicants nos. 14 and 15 informed the authorities of their intention to log forest on their property Erämaa 28:18 at Kontiolahti which is located within the outline objective.         On 15 February 1991 the Act on the Koli Natural Park (laki 581/91 Kolin kansallispuistosta, lag 581/91 om Koli nationalpark; "the 1991 Act") was enacted by Parliament.         On 14 March 1991 the County Administrative Board issued an activity prohibition with regard to Erämaa 28:18, apparently valid for one year. The Board stated, inter alia:         (translation from Finnish)         "... The extension of the ... park is intended to take       place either through voluntary sales or property exchanges.       It is furthermore intended that no activities significantly       changing the natural state be carried out within the ...       outline objective. The logging planned [by applicants nos.       14 and 15] must be considered to significantly change the       natural state of the area. [Applicants nos. 14 and 15] have       ... stated their unwillingness to sell [their property] to       the State or to exchange it [for another property] ... and       have stated that they are unwilling to postpone the logging       pending negotiations. A question of expropriation for       conservation purposes must therefore be considered to have       arisen. ..."         In a resolution (ponsi, kläm) adopted on 27 March 1991 Parliament (eduskunta, riksdagen) presupposed that the Council of State would ensure that the legal status and protection of the private property owners affected by the 1991 Act were not jeopardised. Parliament further required that the park area only be extended through voluntary property sales or exchanges. Resolutions of this character are not legally binding.         Following the expiry of the activity prohibition concerning the property Erämaa 28:18 the County Administrative Board on 9 November 1992 decided to grant applicants nos. 14 and 15 compensation for the losses suffered by them on account of the prohibition.         On 10 April 1991 the 1991 Act entered into force. A Decree (asetus 674/91 Kolin kansallispuistosta, förordning 674/91 om Koli nationalpark; hereinafter "the 1991 Decree") was issued on 12 April 1991 and entered into force on 1 May 1991, but it applies only to State-owned land within the park area.         On 17 May 1991 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeals lodged by all applicants except applicant no. 15, finding that it had no competence to examine a legislative matter.         In a letter of 21 May 1991 to the association representing the applicants before the Commission the Ministry for the Environment considered the outline objective to be valid as it appeared from Bill no. 307/90. The Ministry referred to the Supreme Administrative Court's decision and its own letter of 23 November 1990.         The association representing the applicants has unsuccessfully attempted to obtain confirmation from the County Administrative Board and the Ministry for the Environment of the properties included in the outline objective. The County Administrative Board itself has also requested the Ministry to clarify the legal situation in respect of the private properties to be included in the park. With the exception of the above-mentioned ministerial letter of 21 May 1991 no such clarification has been provided.         On 30 November 1992 the Parliamentary Ombudsman (eduskunnan oikeusasiamies, riksdagens justitieombudsman) rendered his decision in response to complaints lodged by, inter alia, the association representing the applicants before the Commission. The Ombudsman considered as regards, inter alia, the letter from the Ministry for the Environment on 23 November 1990         - that the Ministry had incorrectly considered the outline       objective referred to in the commentary to Bill no. 307/90       to be on an equal footing with nature conservation       programmes adopted by the Council of State through       decisions "of principle";         - that the outline objective could not be placed on an       equal footing with areas to which sections 52 and 124 of       the 1959 Building Decree are applicable;         - that as a result the Ministry had incorrectly ordered the       municipal Building Boards (rakennuslautakunnat,       byggnadsnämnderna) to hear the County Administrative Board       in accordance with those provisions, when considering a       request for a permit for construction;         - that no actual decision had been made by the Council of       State in regard to the outline objective;         - that the Ministry's letter was only an internal       administrative letter containing a directive (toimiohje,       direktiv) to a lower-ranking authority;         - that the Ministry's view expressed in the Government's       commentary to Bill no. 307/90 to the effect that the       private properties within the outline objective should be       acquired by the State, did not constitute a redemption       decision and thus did not as such grant the State any right       to proceed to redemption of properties without a redemption       permit issued in accordance with the 1977 Redemption Act       (laki 603/77 kiinteän omaisuuden ja erityisten oikeuksien       lunastuksesta, lag 603/77 om inlösen av fast egendom och       särskilda rättigheter; hereinafter "the 1977 Act");         - that the Ministry's view that the properties within the       outline objective fulfilled the requirements for areas       prescribed in section 1 of the 1923 Act created the       conditions for interfering with the rights of the affected       property owners, albeit in subsequent proceedings under the       1923, 1958 or 1977 Acts;         - that, although the Ministry's intention to maintain the       areas within the outline objective in their natural state       did not prohibit the use of the properties, the outline       objective was causing de facto restrictions on the property       owners' right to use their properties similar to those       caused by the so-called shore conservation programme       (rantojensuojeluohjelma, strandskyddsprogrammet) adopted in       principle by the Council of State on 20 December 1990;         - that the outline objective had thus created a de facto       threat of expropriation which was forcing an affected       property owner to abstain from using his property contrary       to the aim of the outline objective;         - that this de facto threat could not be considered as a       deprivation of property, but as an interference with the       owner's right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions,       as enshrined in the first sentence of the first paragraph       of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;         - that it was questionable whether this interference could       be considered justified by the second paragraph of Article       1, as the outline objective did not appear in the 1991 Act       and there was no appeal against it;         - that under the relevant laws, however, court remedies       were available to property owners wishing to challenge an       activity prohibition, a building prohibition, a redemption       permit or the compensation amount received in redemption       proceedings; and, in conclusion,         -   that the outline objective could not be considered to be       clearly in breach of section 6 of the Constitution Act nor       of Article 6 of the Convention or Article 1 of Protocol       No. 1; but         - that, considering the factual effects which the outline       objective was causing to the property owners, it should       have been prescribed by law; and         - that the outline objective should at least have been       formally decided by the Council of State and not have been       imposed by a decision of principle, the possibility of       making decisions of the last-mentioned character not being       prescribed by law.         Prior to 23 November 1990 the first applicant and applicants nos. 20-23, whose property Tarhalahti 18:12 is not located within the area covered by the outline objective, was granted a permit for the construction of a leisure house on that property. The house was also built prior to 23 November 1990.         Applicant no. 11, whose property is located within the area covered by the outline objective, has also been granted a permit for the construction of a leisure house. It is unknown whether the permit was granted before or after 23 November 1990.         By a letter of 14 December 1992 to the County Administrative Board the Ministry for the Environment stated that it had incorrectly placed the outline objective on an equal footing with a conservation programme adopted by the Council of State.         On 12 January 1993 the Building Board of Lieksa ordered the State-owned Forest Research Institute (metsäntutkimuslaitos, skogsforskningscentralen) to accept that the first applicant and applicants nos. 20-23 dig a cable for electricity into the ground of a property owned by the Institute and located within the original park area. The cable was intended to serve those applicants' leisure house located on the property Tarhalahti 18:12. The Institute had rejected a request by the applicants at issue in October 1991 and December 1992, referring to an opinion of the Ministry for the Environment of November 1992. The Ministry had underlined that any electrification within the park area would have to comply with the limitations on the use of the property prescribed in section 1 of the 1991 Decree.         An appeal lodged by the Forest Research Institute against the decision of the Building Board was rejected by the County Administrative Court (lääninoikeus, länsrätten) of Northern Karelia on 7 May 1993. The Court noted that under section 8 of the 1923 Act the relevant conservation measures did not limit an already acquired private right. According to the plan of the area confirmed by the Ministry for the Environment in 1987, the applicants at issue had been granted a right in principle to construct a leisure house. The right to obtain electrification for the house was considered as part and parcel of the right of the applicants at issue to use their house. The applicants had therefore already prior to the entry into force of the 1991 Decree acquired a right to dig, if necessary, an electricity cable on the Institute's property. The Court further noted that no steps had been taken by the State to expropriate the property Tarhalahti 18:12 or any of the rights pertaining to it.         In a further appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court the Forest Research Institute maintained that the 1923 and 1991 Acts superseded the 1958 Act. The Institute further referred to "conservation decisions on a national level" in regard to the use of "the area of Koli" which deviated from the plan confirmed by the Ministry in 1987. The appeal is still pending.   Relevant domestic law and practice   1.     The 1991 Act on the Koli Natural Park         Section 2 para. 1 of the 1991 Act reads:         "The area of the Koli natural park amounts to about 1.135       hectares and its boundaries are marked on the map enclosed       with this Act."   2.     The conditions for the establishment of conservation areas         Section 1 of the 1923 Act (as amended by Act no. 399/41) concerns State-owned real property. Such property may be reserved as a general conservation area for the purpose of protecting it from interferences by man (subsection 1). A specific conservation area may also be established in order to protect a place of great natural beauty or with otherwise remarkable nature or in order to protect a particular animal or plant species (subsection 2). A conservation order made in accordance with the above-mentioned provisions shall not limit a right of a private party which was acquired prior to the conservation (section 8).         Section 9 of the 1923 Act (as amended by Act no. 672/91) concerns private properties. On request by the property owner the County Administrative Board may declare a property of significant importance from the point of view of nature conservation as a specific conservation area pursuant to section 1, subsection 2 (subsection 1).   3.     Expropriation         Under the 1919 Constitution Act (hallitusmuoto 94/19, regeringsform 94/19) the right of Finnish citizens to their possessions shall be secured by law (section 6, subsection 1). Expropriation of property in the public interest against full compensation shall be governed by law (subsection 3).         In accordance with the 1977 Act the State may expropriate real property for the purpose of creating a conservation area (section 18, subsection 1 of the 1923 Act, as amended by Act no. 672/91).         A property may be expropriated if there is a general need therefor. Expropriation shall, however, not be resorted to, if its aim may also be achieved in another manner or if the inconvenience caused to a private interest is more significant than the benefit to the general interest (section 4, subsection 1 of the 1977 Act).         Expropriation permits are granted by the Council of State or, in certain cases, by the competent County Administrative Board or another administrative authority (section 5, subsection 1 of the 1977 Act). A permit is not needed if another decision already entails a right to proceed to expropriation (subsection 2, as amended by Act no. 1110/82).         A property owner is entitled to full compensation for the economic losses caused by the expropriation. The sum shall be fixed on the basis of the market price of the property (sections 29 and 30 of the 1977 Act).   4.     Restrictions on the use of real property         The County Administrative Board may, provisionally and for a maximum period of two years, prohibit an area from being used in a manner which could jeopardise the aim of an expropriation in accordance with the 1923 and 1977 Acts. The prohibition is immediately enforceable irrespective of appeal proceedings, unless the appeal body decides otherwise. If no expropriation takes place a compensation shall be fixed by the Board for any damage or inconvenience caused by the prohibition (section 18, subsection 2 of the 1923 Act, as amended by Act no. 672/91).         If an expropriation permit has been granted the property at issue shall not be used in a manner which could jeopardise the aim of the expropriation. This prohibition is in force until the expropriation proceedings have terminated or until the moment when the expropriation matter is struck off. In the last-mentioned case compensation for losses or inconvenience caused by the prohibition shall be paid by the   State (section 18, subsection 3 of the 1923 Act, as amended by Act no. 672/91).         The competent County Administrative Board shall be heard by the local Building Board in respect of a request for a building permit pertaining to a property located, inter alia, within an area included in a conservation programme adopted by the Council of State. The County Administrative Board's opinion shall be given within six months (section 52, subsection 3 of the 1959 Decree, as amended by Decree no. 480/90 which entered into force on 1 June 1990). Section 124, subsection 3 of the 1959 Decree (as amended by Decree no. 480/90) provides for similar conditions in respect of a request for a building permit pertaining to a property covered by a building plan (rakennuskaava, byggnadsplan). Finally, section 137 (as amended by Decree no. 480/90) provides for a similar procedure with regard to a request for a building permit within an area not covered by a town plan (asemakaava, stadsplan), building plan or shore plan.   The Ministry for the Environment may, if it deems it necessary, order a municipality to adopt or amend a certain plan within a fixed period of time. The order entails a building prohibition and an activity prohibition applicable to the area indicated in the order. If necessary, the Ministry may proceed to having the municipality comply with the order under threat of an administrative fine (uhkasakko, vite) (section 143, subsection 1 of the 1958 Act, as amended by Act no. 626/69, and subsection 7, as amended by Act no. 556/81).         The use of the State-owned properties included in the Koli Natural Park is governed by section 1 of the 1991 Decree which prohibits certain activities which could adversely affect the conservable values on the properties.   5.     Case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court         In a judgment of 22 June 1992 the Supreme Administrative Court considered an appeal lodged by owners of properties against the so-called national shore conservation programme (rantojensuojelu- ohjelma, strandskyddsprogrammet) adopted by the Council of State on 20 December 1990. The Court considered that due to the actual effects of the programme owners of properties within the area covered by the programme had a locus standi as appellants. Their appeals were, however, rejected after an examination on the merits.         In a judgment of 1974 (no. II 66) the Supreme Administrative Court found that a so-called general plan of the first degree was considered appealable in view of its immediate legal effect. This view was confirmed by the Supreme Administrative Court in a 1978 judgment (no. II 37).   COMPLAINTS   1.     The applicants complain that they were never heard during the procedure for creating the park and that they had no possibility of obtaining a court review of the restrictions on the use of their properties resulting from the inclusion of their properties in the outline objective and the relevant ministerial "orders". They invoke Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   2.     The applicants further complain that as a result of the outline objective, as included in the commentary to the Bill no. 307/90, and the related ministerial "order" of 23 November 1990 their properties are being subjected to a de facto activity prohibition or at least to a de facto restriction on their right to use the properties. This constitutes an unjustified interference with their property rights. The outline objective allegedly lacks a legal basis. Moreover, together with the ministerial "order" it is preventing almost any use of their properties for an unlimited period of time and is subjecting them to an expropriation threat. At the same time, however, the applicants are taxed for their properties. Finally, the applicants are unable to receive compensation for their alleged financial losses suffered as a result of the ongoing situation. The applicants invoke Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 29 January 1991 and registered on 24 March 1992.         On 30 November 1992 the Commission decided to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite them to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.         The observations were submitted by the respondent Government on 5 April 1993 following two extensions of their time limit. Observations in reply were submitted by the applicants on 12 July 1993. Additional observations were submitted by them on 10 October 1993 and 15 June 1994.   THE LAW   1.     The applicants complain that they were never heard during the procedure for creating the park and that they had no possibility of a court review of the restrictions on the use of their properties resulting from the inclusion of their properties in the outline objective and the relevant ministerial "order". They invoke Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention which, insofar as it is relevant, reads as follows:         "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations       ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ...       by an independent and impartial tribunal established by       law. ..."         The Government consider that those of the applicants who have sold their properties or who have received compensation for an activity prohibition issued under section 18 of the 1923 Act cannot claim to have the status of "victim[s]" within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention. As far as the complaint has been lodged by those applicants, it should therefore be considered incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention. As far as the remaining applicants are concerned, the Government argue that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) is not applicable to the complaint. The presentation of Bill no. 307/90 to Parliament on 23 November 1990 was not, even if considered in combination with the letter from the Ministry for the Environment of the same day, decisive for the applicants' "civil rights". The measures were of public law character and only subsequent proceedings under special legislation would determine the applicants' "civil rights". On the one hand, the decisions which could be made by the authorities in such proceedings do not presuppose the publication of an outline objective. On the other hand, a request for a building permit could not be rejected solely on the basis of an outline objective, since the legal conditions for granting a permit are to be examined in pursuance of the 1958 Act. In conclusion, no measures have been taken in the applicants' case which would not have been possible to take already without the outline objective.         The applicants maintain that they can all claim to be "victim[s]" within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention. Faced with the choice of selling their properties or not using them in a profitable manner the property owners who have sold their properties have de facto been forced to do so.         The applicants further maintain that their "civil rights" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) were determined already as a result of the inclusion of their properties in the outline objective through the commentary to Bill no. 307/90 and as a result of the ministerial "order" of 23 November 1990 formally confirming the existence of the outline objective. Reference is made, inter alia, to the Ministry's letter of 21 May 1991 in which this position was upheld. The de facto repercussions on the applicants' properties resulting from the outline objective have forced the applicants to abstain from construction, forestry measures and practically all use of their properties in order to avoid activity prohibitions being issued on the basis of the outline objective. The threat of such prohibitions being issued is a real one, as shown by the prohibition issued in regard to the property belonging to applicants nos. 14 and 15.         The Commission considers it unnecessary to determine whether for the purposes of the present complaint the applicants can all claim to be "victim[s]" within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention, as the complaint is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.         The Commission must first ascertain whether Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) is applicable in the instant case and, notably, whether there was a dispute over a "civil right" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law. The dispute must be genuine and serious and its outcome must be directly decisive for the right in question (e.g. Eur. Court H.R., Oerlemans judgment of 27 November 1991, Series A no. 219, pp. 20-21, paras. 45-49).         In the present case the Commission considers that there existed a dispute concerning the lawfulness of the outline objective and the allegedly related restrictions on the applicants' use of their properties, the right of property clearly being a "civil right" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) (e.g. Eur. Court H.R., Zander judgment of 25 November 1993, Series A no. 279-B, p. 40, para. 27; cf. also O. v. Austria, Comm. Report 14.5.93, para. 34, pending before the European Court of Human Rights and to be published in Series A).         The Commission finds that the outline objective as such, as expressed in the commentary to Bill no. 307/90 and the ministerial letter of 23 November 1990, did not in itself entail any de jure activity prohibition served on individualised property owners and restricting the applicants' right to use their properties without seeking prior authorisation (cf., a contrario, the above-mentioned Oerlemans judgment, p. 10, para. 16; Eur. Court H.R., de Geouffre de la Pradelle judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 253-B, pp. 42-43, para. 33; Eur. Court H.R., Allan Jacobsson judgment of 23 October 1989, Series A no. 163, pp. 19-20, paras. 68-71). Nor did the outline objective entail a refusal to authorise certain use of the properties (cf., a contrario, Eur. Court H.R., Skärby judgment of 8 June 1990, Series A no. 180-B, pp. 36-37, para. 28) or a revocation of any permit already permitting certain use of the properties (cf., a contrario, Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), Comm. Report 6.11.89, paras. 90-91, Eur. Court H.R., Series A no. 192, p. 34, and the above-mentioned de Geouffre de la Pradelle judgment, p. 43, para. 34). Finally, the outline objective neither constituted the issuing of an expropriation permit nor did it amount to an amendment of a plan capable of otherwise extinguishing any of the applicants' property rights (cf., a contrario, Eur. Court H.R., Sporrong and Lönnroth judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, pp. 29-30, para. 80, and Eur. Court H.R., Mats Jacobsson judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A no. 180-A, pp. 13-14, para. 33).         The Commission considers that the non-binding character of the outline objective as a mere declaration of the Government's intentions is further supported by the lack of individualisation even of the property units affected. Indeed, the association representing the applicants before the Commission and even the competent County Administrative Board appear to have been unsuccessful in attempting to clarify which properties should be considered as included in the outline objective.         The Commission therefore accepts that in the particular circumstances of the present case the dispute at issue was not directly decisive for the applicants' "civil rights". Accordingly, Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention is not applicable.         It follows that the complaint must be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).   2.     The applicants further complain that the restrictions on the use of their properties resulting from their inclusion in the outline objective and the rel