CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 novembre 1993

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. November 1993 Zander v. Sweden - 14282/88 Judgment 25.11.1993 Article 6 Article 6-1 Access to court Civil rights and obligations Lack of access to court to challenge the granting of a refuse-dumping permit to a company on neighbouring land: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Applicability 1.   Existence of a dispute (contestation) over a "right" Principles of Court's case-law reiterated. Applicants' claim to Licensing Board was based on statutory provision laying down obligations incumbent on a person engaging in environmentally hazardous activity, without however specifying who is beneficiary of those obligations - nevertheless,   they could arguably maintain that they were entitled under Swedish law to protection against water in their well-being polluted as a result of the company's activities on the refuse dump - there was disagreement between applicants and Licensing Board capable of going to the lawfulness of conditions attached to the permit granted - outcome of dispute directly decisive for applicants' above entitlement - accordingly, their appeal to the Government against Licensing Board's decision to grant permit involved a "determination" of one of their "rights". 2.   Whether the right at issue was a "civil right" Applicants' claim was directly concerned with their ability to use water in their well for drinking purposes - such ability was one facet of the right of property - entitlement in issue was a "civil right". Conclusion : Article 6 § 1 applicable (unanimously). B.   Compliance Under Swedish law, not possible at material time for applicants to have relevant decision reviewed by a court. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage: no claim made for pecuniary damage - award of compensation on equitable basis for non-pecuniary damage. B.   Costs and expenses: partial reimbursement awarded. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sums to the applicants (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes