CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 5 avril 1995

.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                                FIRST CHAMBER                          Application No. 18507/91                                     H.                                   against                                   Finland                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                          (adopted on 5 April 1995)                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page   I.     INTRODUCTION       (paras. 1-20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         A.    The application            (paras. 2-4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         B.    The proceedings            (paras. 5-15). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1         C.    The present Report            (paras. 16-20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS       (paras. 21-87). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4         A.    The particular circumstances of the case            (paras. 21-49) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4         B.    Relevant domestic law and practice            (paras. 50-87) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7              1.     General provisions on the construction                  and the maintenance of a private road                  (paras. 50-60) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7              2.     The proceedings before the Forestry Board                  (paras. 61-62) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8              3.     The proceedings before the Expert and Trustees                  (paras. 63-75) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9              4.     The proceedings before the Land Court                  (paras. 76-85) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12              5.     Supreme Court practice                  (paras. 86-87) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION       (paras. 88-152) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15         A.    Complaints declared admissible            (para. 88) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15         B.    Points at issue            (para. 89) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page         C.    As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention            (paras. 90-114). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15              1.     The Commission's competence ratione temporis                  (paras. 99-101). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17              2.     The Commission's competence ratione materiae                  (paras. 102-103) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17              3.     Did the applicant have access to a court ?                  (paras. 104-113) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18              CONCLUSION            (para. 114). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19         D.    As regards Article 1 of Protocol No. 1            to the Convention            (paras. 115-145) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19              1.     The deprivation of the applicant's property                  (paras. 122-134) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20                    CONCLUSION                  (para. 134). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23              2.     The applicant's obligation to participate                  in the road costs                  (paras. 135-145) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23                    CONCLUSION                  (para. 145). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25         E.    As regards Article 13 of the Convention            (paras. 146-148) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25              CONCLUSION            (para. 148). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25         F.    Recapitulation            (paras. 149-152) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25   DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS. J. LIDDY JOINED BY MR. A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK AS REGARDS ARTICLE 6 PARA. 1 OF THE CONVENTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27   APPENDIX:   DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30   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 1947 and resident at Storvik, Sweden. He was represented before the Commission by Mr. Peter Westdahl, a lawyer practising in Gothenburg, Sweden.   3.     The application is directed against Finland. The respondent Government were represented by their agent, Ambassador Tom Grönberg, then Director-General for Legal Affairs, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, and by their co-agent, Mr. Arto Kosonen, legal adviser of the said Ministry.   4.     The case concerns administrative and court proceedings with a view to establishing a private road crossing over the applicant's property. It raises issues in regard to his right of access to a court and the justification of the interference with his property rights. The applicant invokes Article 6 para. 1, Article 13 of the Convention as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   B.     The proceedings   5.     The application was introduced on 22 April 1991 and registered on 15 July 1991.   6.     On 1 July 1992 the Commission (First Chamber) decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits thereof with the exception of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   7.     The Government's observations were submitted on 22 October 1992 and the applicant's observations in reply on 4 January 1993.     8.     On 11 January 1994 the Commission decided to invite the parties to a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaints under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention. It further decided to invite the respondent Government to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   9.     The Government's observations on the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 were submitted on 22 February 1994 and the applicant's observations on 6 and 16 March 1994.   10.    On 8 March 1994 the Commission granted the applicant legal aid for the representation of his case as from and including counsel's preparations for the hearing.   11.    On 13 April 1994 the Commission decided to extend the scope of its hearing to include the question of the admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   12.    At the hearing which was held on 12 May 1994 the Government were represented by their agent, Mr. Grönberg, their co-agent, Mr. Kosonen, as well as their expert, Mrs. Leea Vikman, land surveyor of the District Surveying Office of Southern Savo. The applicant was represented by his counsel, Mr. Westdahl, assisted by Mr. Roger Loo, an engineer.   13.    On 12 May 1994 the Commission declared admissible the applicant's complaint concerning the composition of a court dealing with his case, his access to that court as well as the fairness of the proceedings as a whole. The Commission further declared admissible one of his complaints relating to the interference with his property rights caused by the construction of the road and the lack of an effective remedy in this respect. It declared inadmissible the remainder of the application.   14.    The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 25 May 1994 and they were invited to submit further observations on the merits. Such observations were submitted by the Government on 2 July and 26 August 1994 and by the applicant on 1 July and 8 September 1994.   15.    After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement. In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.     The present Report   16.    The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission (First Chamber) in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:              Mr.    C.L. ROZAKIS, President            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  E. KONSTANTINOV   17.    The text of this Report was adopted on 5 April 1995 by the Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   18.    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.   19.    The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application is appended to the Report.   20.    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   21.    The applicant is the owner of the real property Tuntskog 4:43 at Iskmo in the municipality of Korsholm (Mustasaari) in Finland. He has been the owner of the property as from 1959.   22.    In 1979 certain property owners requested the Forestry Board (metsälautakunta, skogsnämnden) of Ostrobotnia to draw up a plan for the construction of a private forestry road in the area of Iskmo.   23.    At a meeting organised by the Forestry Board on 3 June 1988 and attended by certain property owners and others a road construction plan drawn up by the Board was adopted. According to the plan, the road was to cross over the applicant's property.   24.    On the same day the Executor of the road construction project (toimitusmies, syssloman), who had been elected at the meeting, requested the District Surveying Office (maanmittauskonttori, lantmäteribyrån) of Vaasa to institute proceedings (tietoimitus, vägförrättning) with a view to approving and implementing the Forestry Board's plan in accordance with the 1962 Act on Private Roads (laki 358/62 yksityisistä teistä, lag 358/62 om enskilda vägar, hereinafter "the 1962 Act").   25.    A further meeting with certain property owners was organised by the Forestry Board presumably in the summer of 1988. At this meeting the planned road was apparently extended.   26.    The applicant was not summoned to the above meetings and did not attend any of them, as he was allegedly unaware of them. According to him, only some 10 to 15 persons were heard by the Forestry Board, whereas the total number of property owners to be affected by the road amounted to approximately 120.   27.    After its plan had been adopted the Forestry Board, in the summer of 1988, had certain logging carried out on the applicant's property in order to stake out the intended location of the road.   28.    On 18 October 1988 the Head of the District Surveying Office appointed M.P. Expert (toimitusinsinööri, förrättningsingenjör) to conduct the proceedings under the 1962 Act.   29.    On 15 November 1989 the Environmental Office (ympäristötoimisto, miljövårdsbyrån) of the County Administrative Board (lääninhallitus, länsstyrelsen) of Vaasa favoured the Forestry Board's plan.   30.    On 16 May 1990 T.K., Head of the District Surveying Office, took over the Expert's duties.   31.    On 30 May 1990 the Expert summoned the applicant to a hearing of property owners on 27 June 1990 by way of a registered letter sent to Sweden to the address of his father at which the applicant had lived until 1983.   32.    According to the applicant, the letter was never received by him, as his father, born in 1900, was in bad health and therefore unable to take care of the correspondence addressed to the applicant.   33.    According to a list drawn up by the Forestry Board on 19 June 1990, the total area of the properties to be affected by the road amounted to 1.312,50 hectares. The size of the applicant's property was 4,1 hectares, corresponding to 0,31 per cent of the total area. The total cost of the road construction was estimated at 1.695.000 FIM. The applicant's share was proposed to amount to 5.933 FIM, corresponding to 0,35 per cent of the total cost. The applicant's address at the time was indicated in the list.   34.    On 27 June 1990 the hearing was held before the Expert, assisted by two Trustees (uskottu mies, gode man). The applicant did not attend the hearing, as he was allegedly unaware of it. At the hearing it was decided to approve the plan drawn up by the Forestry Board. This entailed, inter alia, the approval of the proposed location of the road except for certain points not relevant for the present case, the approval of the cost estimation, the establishment of rights of way (tieoikeudet, vägrätter) encumbering certain properties and favouring others, the approval of the so-called road units (tieosuus, vägenhet) indicating the relative distribution of the road costs between its owners and the founding of an association of road owners (tiekunta, väglag). It was further decided that no property owner should receive compensation, as the benefit of the road was considered to compensate the interference with the owners' rights. The decision was given in writing on the same day.   35.     On 30 August 1990 the applicant and certain others, including his father, signed a submission in support of an appeal to the Land Court (maaoikeus, jorddomstolen) of Vaasa dated 23 July 1990 and lodged on 26 July 1990. In this appeal it had been requested that only part of the Forestry Board's plan be confirmed by the Land Court and that part of it be replaced by already existing roads. This alternative solution would allegedly have lowered the cost of the road project from approximately 1,7 million FIM to 0,8 million FIM and required significantly less interference with the natural habitat.   36.    The submission signed by the applicant and others read as follows:         (translation from Swedish)         "Further support for the appeal concerning the Iskmo       forestry road ... of 23 July 1990:         We undersigned parties to the case in our capacity of       owners of forest properties fully support the above-       mentioned appeal.         As we have received complete information about the project       only after the expiry of the time-limit for appealing,       these submissions are actually belated, but we hope that       the Land Court will understand that we are also entitled to       express our opinion. ..."   37.    On 21 August 1990 the applicant's father and certain others, excluding the applicant, had authorised, among others, two of the signatories of the appeal of 23 July 1990 to act on their behalf in the proceedings before the Land Court.   38.    Notification of the Land Court's hearing on 16 October 1990 was given by an announcement placed on the notice board of the Municipal Hall of Korsholm (Mustasaari) on 18 September 1990. It was also announced in Swedish in the local newspaper "Vasabladet" on 29 September 1990. The applicant was not individually summoned to, and did not attend, this hearing.   39.    On 16 October 1990 the Land Court heard, among others, one of the signatories of the appeal of 23 July 1990, who also presented the supporting submission of 30 August 1990 as a representative of its signatories with the exception of the applicant. The Land Court then decided to hold a further hearing on 24 October 1990 in connection with which it would carry out an inspection of the area (katselmus, syn). The applicant was not individually summoned to this hearing either, nor did he attend it.   40.    At it second hearing the Land Court heard certain appellants as well as fourteen property owners none of whom were appellants but who had intervened in the proceedings in accordance with section 322, subsection 1 of the 1951 Partition Act (jakolaki 604/51, lag 604/51 om skifte, hereinafter "the 1951 Act"). It further heard the now three Executors as well as the Expert and two representatives of the Forestry Board.   41.    In its judgment the Land Court dismissed the appeal of 23 July 1990 without examining it on its merits as far it had been lodged or supported by, among others, the applicant. The Land Court considered that he had not been properly represented. The Land Court furthermore examined and rejected the appeal as far as it had been lodged by a number of other persons. It found that the road would not create any significant inconvenience for the property owners and that there were no weighty reasons for changing the proposed location. Regard was had to the opinion by the Environmental Office of the County Administrative Board. The Land Court further noted that none of the appellants had questioned the need for a road to the area.   42.    The Land Court was presided by a judge and further consisted of four members, namely the Head of the County Surveying Office (lääninmaanmittausinsinööri, länslantmäteriingenjören), a Land Court Surveyor (maaoikeusinsinööri, jordrättsingenjör) and two lay judges.   43.    On 25 March 1991 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused the applicant leave to appeal.   44.    In a letter of 9 January 1992 addressed to the Forestry Board the applicant requested, pursuant to section 28, subsection 2 of the 1962 Act, to be excluded from the association of road owners and exempted from his obligation to participate in the road maintenance costs.   45.    In a letter of 16 January 1992 the Forestry Board informed the applicant that a road agreement (tiesopimus, vägavtal) had been signed by all affected by the road except for the applicant and one further property owner (the applicant in Application No. 18595/91). The Board recalled that the proceedings before the Expert and Trustees had determined the location and width of the road as well as the relative financial responsibility of each party. As all relevant decisions had acquired legal force, the plan, including its financial implications, could no longer be amended. Accordingly, the Board had no competence to amend the applicant's share of the road costs.   46.    On 16 January 1992 the applicant authorised one of the Executors to sign the road agreement on his behalf, although reserving his position stated in his application to the Commission. The acceptance of the agreement qualified the applicant for a State subsidy and low- interest loan related to his share of the road costs.   47.    On 30 March 1992 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's request for an annulment of the Land Court's judgment.   48.    The road construction works commenced in the summer of 1991.   49.    On 1 October 1991 the Forestry Board adopted a forestry improvement plan pertaining to the road. On 21 January 1992 it decided to grant the applicant a State forestry improvement subsidy (metsän-parannusvarat, skogsförbättringsunderstöd) in the amount of 1.186 FIM and a low-interest forestry improvement loan by the State (metsän-parannuslaina, skogsförbättringslån) in the amount of 4.747 FIM, the sums equalling his share of the road construction costs. It further disregarded the applicant's reservations to his authority of 16 January 1992.   B.     Relevant domestic law and practice         1.    General provisions on the construction and the            maintenance of a private road   50.    A road shall be constructed so as to achieve the purpose of the road in an optimal manner while at the same time not causing more than necessary damage or harm to anyone. A road shall not be constructed, if it cannot be regarded as necessary, having regard to the use of existing private and public roads and other important general considerations. The above considerations shall also apply to other measures taken in connection with a road construction (section 7, subsections 1 to 3 of the 1962 Act, as amended by Act no. 521/75).   51.    If the proper use of a property requires that a road be established over a property owned by someone else and provided this does not cause significant harm to the last-mentioned property, an area of that property shall be given up for road purposes. The area is to be determined in proceedings before an Expert and Trustees. Such a permanent right of usufruct relating to an area forming part of another property is called a right of way (section 8, subsection 1).   52.    If the proper use of a property requires it to be served by an already existing road in respect of which a right of way has not yet been granted to the property, such a right shall be granted provided this does not cause significant harm to the property on which the road is located or to other holders of a right of way. Such a right of way shall be granted in proceedings before an Expert and Trustees or by decision of the municipal Road Board (tielautakunta, vägnämnd) or the association of joint road owners (section 9).   53.    Anyone who has been given permission to use a road or whose property is located either partly or completely within the area which the road must be considered to serve shall participate in the construction and maintenance costs for the road (section 22, subsection 1).   54.    If a significant number of those who would be obliged to participate in the costs for the maintenance of the road oppose its construction and provided the road would clearly serve only a minor purpose for several properties, it may be decided to construct the road only at the expense of those who wish to have it constructed (section 22, subsection 2).   55.    If the road to be constructed would only serve a property to a limited extent, due to, for instance, another already existing road serving the property, the owner shall be exempted from participating in the costs for the new road provided he states that he will abstain from using it (section 22, subsection 3).   56.    The financial responsibility for the road shall be distributed between the participants in the road construction according to their individual benefit from the road. In this assessment regard should be had to, among other things, the size of the properties and to what extent the road will be used by each participant (section 23, subsection 1).   57.    The proposed location of the road shall, as far as necessary, also be marked in the terrain pursuant to the 1962 Ordinance on Private Roads (asetus 690/62 yksityisistä teistä, förordning 690/62 om enskilda vägar) (section 48, subsection 2 of the 1962 Act, as amended by Act no. 521/75).   58.    A road owner may request to be excluded from the association of road owners and exempted from his obligation to participate in the road maintenance costs if the road is no longer needed by the property at issue (section 28, subsection 2 of the 1962 Act).   59.    If the circumstances affecting his obligation to participate in the maintenance of the road or his share of the maintenance costs have considerably changed, the relative distribution of those costs between the road owners shall be revised on request. Regardless of such circumstances he may request a revision of the cost responsibility if it has remained unchanged during at least five years (section 29).   60.    The above requests shall be examined at the general meeting of the association of road owners (section 64, subsection 2, para. 2). The decision of the meeting can be appealed to the Road Board (section 70, subsection 1). The decision of the Road Board may be appealed to the Land Court (section 55, as amended by Act no. 521/75). Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court may subsequently be requested (section 333, subsection 2 of the 1951 Act, as amended by Act no. 509/84).         2.    The proceedings before the Forestry Board   61.    The Forestry Board is a public body governed by the 1987 Act on the Central Forestry Boards and Forestry Boards (laki 139/87 keskus- metsälautakunnista ja metsälautakunnista, lag 139/87 om centralskogs- nämnder och skogsnämnder) and, as from 1 March 1991, by the 1991 Act on Forestry Centres and Forestry Boards (laki 265/91 metsäkeskuksista ja metsälautakunnista, lag 265/91 om skogscentraler och skogsnämnder).   62.    Under both Acts the members of the Forestry Boards shall be appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The meetings held at the initial stage of the proceedings with a view to outlining a road construction plan are governed by the 1987 Forest Improvement Act (metsänparannuslaki 140/87, skogsförbättringslag 140/87).         3.    The proceedings before the Expert and Trustees   63.    Proceedings for the execution of a road construction plan may be instituted by the property owner or municipality concerned or by the relevant association of road owners (section 39, subsection 1 of the 1962 Act, as amended by Act no. 498/82, and subsection 4, as amended by Act no. 521/75). Others who have been allowed to use a road for economic purposes as well as possessors of rights of usufruct may express their opinions during the proceedings (section 39, subsection 2).   64.    The proceedings are conducted by an Expert assisted by two Trustees (section 43, subsection 1 of the 1951 Act, as amended by Act no. 321/72). The Expert is normally an official of the District Surveying Office, either the Head of the Office or another land surveyor appointed by him.   65.    The Trustees are appointed by the Expert from a list of at least six persons adopted by the relevant Municipal Council (kunnanvaltuusto, kommunfullmäktige) for a period of four years (section 43, subsection 1 of the 1951 Act, as amended by Act no. 321/72, and section 44, as partly amended by Act no. 321/72). Instead of appointing the Trustees the Expert may choose to be assisted by two members of the Road Board (section 40, subsection 1 of the 1962 Act, as amended by 322/72). The Trustees shall be acquainted with property matters and fulfil the conditions of lay judges sitting on District Courts (kihlakunnanoikeus, häradsrätt; section 45, subsection 1 of the 1951 Act, as in force at the relevant time). There is no requirement that the Expert or any of the Trustees should be a lawyer.     66.    The request for proceedings to be instituted before the Expert and Trustees shall, as far as possible, contain a list of all those affected by the proceedings as well as a sufficiently detailed map showing the location of the road. The request shall further contain the addresses of those applying for proceedings to be instituted and, as far as possible, the addresses of all those affected by the proceedings (section 41, subsection 2 of the 1962 Act, as amended by Act no. 521/75).   67.    If the Expert is of one opinion and the Trustees jointly of another, the Trustees' opinion shall prevail. If all three disagree, the Expert's opinion shall prevail (section 49 of the 1951 Act).   68.    If the proceedings concern a forestry road, the Expert shall inform the Central Forestry Board which shall, if necessary, appoint an expert to represent the Board in the proceedings (section 42, subsection 1 of the 1962 Act, as amended by Act no. 521/75).   69.    Section 43, subsections 1, 2, 6 and 7 of the 1962 Act, as amended by Act no. 521/75, read, as far as relevant, as follows:         (Finnish)         "Toimitusinsinöörin on kutsuttava asianosaiset       tietoimitukseen tiedottamalla kokouksen ajasta ja paikasta       kuulutuksella kunnan ilmoitustaululla vähintään neljätoista       päivää ennen kokousta.         Tietoimituksesta on lisäksi kuulutettava yhdessä tai       kahdessa paikkakunnalla leviävässä sanomalehdessä vähintään       neljätoista päivää ennen kokousta sekä ilmoitettava       kutsukirjeellä ... sellaiselle toisesta kunnasta olevalle       asianosaiselle, jonka osoite on asiakirjoissa mainittu tai       muutoin toimitusinsinöörin tiedossa. ...       ...       Tässä pykälässä tarkoitettu kutsukirje on vähintään       neljätoista päivää ennen kokousta kirjattuna annettava       postin kuljetettavaksi. ...         Jos kaikki asianosaiset ovat saapuneet toimitukseen tai       saaneet vähintään neljätoista päivää ennen sen alkamista       toimitusinsinööriltä todistettavasti kehotuksen saapua       siihen, voidaan toimitus suorittaa vaikka kokouksesta ei       ole tässä pykälässä säädetyllä tavalla kuulutettu ja       ilmoitettu."         (Swedish)         "Förrättningsingenjören skall kalla sakägarna till       vägförrättning genom att tillkännagiva tiden och platsen       för sammanträdet medels kungörelse på kommunens       anslagstavla minst fjorton dagar före sammanträdets början.         Vägförrättning skall dessutom kungöras i en eller två på       orten spridda tidningar minst fjorton dagar före       sammanträdets början samt genom kallelsebrev meddelas ...       sådan sakägare från annan kommun, vars adress är nämnd i       handlingarna eller eljest är av förrättningsingenjören       känd. ...       ...       I denna paragraf avsett kallelsebrev skall minst fjorton       dagar före sammanträdet såsom rekommenderat inlämnas till       posten för befordran. ...         Ha alla de som äro sakägare vid förrättning kommit       tillstädes eller minst fjorton dagar före förrättningens       början bevisligen av förrättningsingenjören erhållit       uppmaning att infinna sig, kan förrättningen verkställas       även om sammanträdet icke blivit kungjort och delgivet på       sätt i denna paragraf är stadgat."         (English)         "The parties to the proceedings shall be summoned by the Expert       at least fourteen days in advance by means of a public notice on       the municipal notice board indicating the hour and venue of the       hearing.         Notification of the proceedings shall further be given in       one or two local newspapers. ... [A] party [to the       proceedings] resident in another municipality and whose       address is indicated in the documents or otherwise known to       the Expert shall be summoned by mail. ...       ...       [Such a] summons shall be handed over to the postal service       at least fourteen days prior to the day of the hearing with       a view to being sent as a registered letter. ...         The hearing before the Expert may be held despite a failure       to comply with the requirements concerning the public       notification and summoning, on the condition that all       parties attend the hearing or, if a party does not attend       the hearing, provided there is evidence that he has       received an invitation to the hearing from the Expert at       least fourteen days in advance."   70.    Section 45, subsection 2 of the 1962 Act, as amended by Act no. 521/75, reads, as far as relevant, as follows:         (Finnish)         "Jollei kaikille niille, joille tietoimituksesta on       lähetettävä kutsukirje sen mukaan kuin 43 §:ssä on       säädetty, ole sitä tomitettu, eivätkä he ole saapuneet       toimitukseen, on toimitus ... siirrettävä ja sellainen       kutsu toimitettava. ..."         (Swedish)         "Har ej kallelsebrev om förrättning tillställts alla dem       som enligt vad i 43 § är stadgat skall tillsändas sådant       och ha dessa icke kommit tillstädes, skall förrättningen       uppskjutas ... och sådan kallelse utgå. ..."         (English)         "If all parties indicated in section 43 have not been       summoned to the hearing and provided these do not attend       the hearing nevertheless, the proceedings shall be       suspended ... and a summons be sent in accordance with       section 43. ..."   71.    At the hearing the Expert and Trustees shall decide, among other matters,         -     whether a road serving a certain property may be            constructed over another property and whether a right of            way to an already existing road shall be granted;       -     the location and width of the road;       -     those financially responsible for the construction and            maintenance of the road;       -     how this responsibility is to be distributed between the            participants; and       -     whether compensation shall be granted, to whom, in what            amount and whether the compensation shall be paid by all or            only some of the participants (section 48, subsection 1 of            the 1962 Act).   72.    If a decision has been made to construct a road, a map and a road description and, if necessary, a cost estimation shall be drawn up. The location of the road shall further be marked in the terrain (section 48, subsection 2, as amended by Act no. 521/75).   73.    If the parties have reached an agreement on questions regarding the right of way as well as its maintenance, the Expert and Trustees shall consider whether that agreement or part of it can be confirmed (section 49, subsection 1). If the agreement is contrary to the requirements in section 7, subsections 2 and 3, or would clearly encumber a property significantly more than allowed by the Act, these parts of the agreement shall not be confirmed (section 49, subsection 2, as amended by Act no. 521/75).   74.    Section 49, subsection 3 of the 1962 Act was repealed by Act no. 217/95 which entered into force on 1 March 1995. As amended by Act no. 521/75 it read, as far as relevant, as follows:         (Finnish)         "Milloin tietoimitus koskee ... metsätietä, jota varten on       asianmukaisessa järjestyksessä hyväksytty valtion varoilla       laadittu suunnitelma, älköön suunnitelman mukaista tien       asemaa muutettako, jollei siihen ole painavia syitä. ..."         (Swedish)         "Avser förrättning ... skogsväg, för vilken med statsmedel       utarbetad plan i vederbörlig ordning godkänts, får vägens       planenliga läge ej ändras, såframt icke vägande skäl       därtill föreligga. ..."         (English)         "If the administrative proceedings concern a ... forestry       road planned with State funds and provided the road       construction plan has been properly approved, the location       of the road shall not be altered unless there are weighty       reasons therefor. ..."     75.    The notice of appeal against decisions made by the Expert and Trustees shall be read out to the parties attending the proceedings, handed over to a representative of theirs as well as to any party on request (section 51, subsection 3 of the 1962 Act and section 316 of the 1951 Act). The appeal shall be lodged within thirty days from the date when the proceedings were announced to be terminated or the decision was given. The notice of appeal or a copy thereof shall be appended to the appeal (sections 313 and 314 of the 1951 Act, the last-mentioned as amended by Act no. 509/84).         4.    The proceedings before the Land Court   76.    Up to the entry into force of Act no. 506/91 on 1 September 1991 amending the 1951 Act the Land Court was presided by a professional judge and further consisted of the Head of the County Surveying Office ex officio, a Land Court Surveyor and two lay judges appointed by the President of the Land Court (section 293, subsection 1, as amended by Act no. 263/79 and section 294, subsection 3, as amended by 267/78).   77.    The President of the Land Court and the Land Court Surveyor are both permanently appointed (subsection 294, subsection 1 of the 1951 Act, as amended by Act no. 638/87, and sections 88 and 89 of the 1919 Constitution Act (Suomen hallitusmuoto 94/19, Regeringsform för Finland 94/19) as amended by Act no. 637/87). The two lay judges are appointed by the President of the Land Court for a particular case from a list of at least four persons drawn up by the relevant Municipal Council for a period of four years (section 294, subsection 3 of the 1951 Act, as amended by Act no. 267/78).   78.    If the Head of the County Surveying Office was prevented from performing the tasks incumbent on him as a member of the Land Court, he was to be replaced by a substitute in the Office assigned to take over such duties. If an urgent duty in office or other particular grounds so required, the Head of the County Surveying Office or his substitute on the Land Court could appoint another land surveyor of the County or District Surveying Office to take over the duties as a member of the Land Court (section 295, as amended by Act no. 321/72).   79.    All members of the Land Court shall have sworn a judicial oath before taking up their duties (section 298, as amended by Act no. 321/72). The rules governing disqualification of a member of a Land Court in a particular case are the same as those applicable to other professional and lay judges (section 299, subsection 1, as amended by Act no. 321/72, and chapter 13, section 1 of the Code on Judicial Procedure (Oikeudenkäymiskaari, Rättegångsbalk)). However, as long as the Head of the County Surveying Office sat on the Land Court he was not considered biased for having performed tasks incumbent on the Office in relation to the administrative proceedings in a particular case (section 299, subsection 2 of the 1951 Act, repealed by Act no. 506/91).   80.    As from 1 September 1991, when an overall restructuring of the county surveying administration entered into force, the Land Court consists of only four members, the Head of the County Surveying Office no longer sitting on the Court (section 293, subsection 1, as amended by Act no. 506/91).   81.    In the Government Bill to Parliament proposing the above-mentioned 1991 amendments to the 1951 Act it was stated that the Land Court should be an impartial and independent tribunal and that the participation of the Head of the County Surveying Office on that court "constituted an exception from the general practice" (Bill No. 199/90, p. 3). Following the amendments the members of the Land Court would be "totally independent from the county surveying authority responsible for the administrative proceedings" (ibid., p. 9).