CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 15 janvier 1997

.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. 27329/95                by Mats WETTERGREN and Anna-Lena WESSMAN                            against Portugal        The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 15 January 1997, the following members being present:              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE, President            MM.    J.-C. GEUS                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS                  F. MARTINEZ                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  P. LORENZEN                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA              Ms.    M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 6 June 1994 by Mats WETTERGREN and Anna-Lena WESSMAN against Portugal and registered on 15 May 1995 under file No. 27329/95;        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicants are Swedish citizens, born in 1953 and 1959, respectively, and residing in Stockholm.        The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.        In 1987 the applicants and the Region of Madeira (Região Autónoma da Madeira), represented by its Regional Government (Governo Regional da Madeira), reached a cooperation agreement regarding the creation of a tropical bird garden on this Portuguese island.        By Resolution (Resolução) no. 1607/87 of 1 December 1987 the Regional Government gave the concession of the area to the applicants and in October 1988 the bird garden was opened to the public.        However, by Resolution no. 743/91 of 11 July 1991, the Regional Government revoked Resolution no. 1607/87 and cancelled the agreement. It was stated that the applicants had not fulfilled some parts of the agreement, namely payment of the rent and of the agreed percentage on the entrance fees.   Subsequently, the authorities took over the administration of the bird garden.        On 10 July 1992 the applicants initiated proceedings for damages against the Regional Government before the Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal Administrativo de círculo) of Lisbon.        The Regional Government replied on 30 October 1992, maintaining that the proceedings, according to Portuguese law, should be taken against the Region of Madeira, the Regional Government being only the executive organ of the Region.        In their subsequent reply, on 17 November 1992, the applicants requested that the respondent party be changed to the Region of Madeira.        The Administrative Tribunal gave its judgment, without a hearing, on 7 October 1994.   It first considered that it was not legally possible to have the respondent party changed at the particular stage of proceedings when the applicants had made their request.   The Administrative Tribunal next found, agreeing with the Regional Government, that the action for damages could only be directed against the Region of Madeira.   The case was thus dismissed without an examination of the merits.        The applicants appealed against this decision to the Supreme Administrative Court (Supremo Tribunal Administrativo), where the case is presently pending.   COMPLAINTS   1.    The applicants complain about the length of the proceedings. They invoke Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   2.    The applicants further complain, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that the Madeira authorities have confiscated their possessions without any compensation.   THE LAW   1.    The applicants complain about the length of the proceedings. They invoke Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1), which provides, as far as relevant:        "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...      everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time      by [a] ... tribunal..."        The Commission considers, however, that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this complaint. It is therefore necessary to give notice thereof to the respondent Government in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure.   2.    The applicants further complain, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), that the Madeira authorities have confiscated their possessions without any compensation.        The Commission notes however that it is not required to decide whether or not the facts submitted by the applicants disclose any appearance of a violation of this provision.   It recalls that according to Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission "may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law".        The Commission observes that the proceedings in which the applicants claim compensation for the alleged confiscation of their possessions are still pending before the administrative courts. Moreover, no other proceedings against the Region of Madeira and related to this complaint, namely an application for judicial review of the Regional Government's Resolution no. 743/91 of 11 July 1991, have been brought by the applicants.        In such circumstances the Commission finds that the condition as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies is not fulfilled and that this part of the application must accordingly be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicants' complaint      relating to the length of the proceedings ;        DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.        M.-T. SCHOEPFER                               G.H. THUNE       Secretary                                   President to the Second Chamber                       of the Second Chamber