CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 7 octobre 1988

.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. 12740/87                       by Bror MUOTKA and Erik PERÄ                       against Sweden             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 7 October 1988, the following members being present:                 MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President                   J. A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   G. SPERDUTI                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J. C. SOYER                   H. G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER                   J. CAMPINOS                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   C. L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY                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 25 October 1986 by Bror MUOTKA and Erik PERÄ against Sweden and registered on 16 February 1987 under file No. 12740/87;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The facts of the case, as they appear from the applicants' submissions, may be summarised as follows.           The applicants are Swedish citizens born in 1913 and 1920 respectively.   They are resident at Övertorneå.           Both applicants own property adjacent to Haapakylänpudas on the Torne river.   The power to permit constructions in or adjacent to the Torne river is entrusted to an inter-state body, the Finnish- Swedish Frontier River Commission (finsk-svenska gränsälvskommissionen), created by an agreement between Finland and Sweden which was concluded in September 1971.           On 12 March 1984 the Frontier River Commission granted permission to the Haapakylänsaari road association (vägförening) to construct, on certain conditions, a road with culverts over Haapakylänpudas.   According to the decision, questions of compensation as a result of the taking of land were to be resolved by agreement between the parties concerned.   Failing agreement, the issue was to be referred to the Frontier River Commission.   Questions of compensation as a result of the construction at issue may be raised until 30 September 1995.           The applicants complained to the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen) of the County of Norrbotten requesting that the Board stop the activities of the Haapakylänsaari road association and order that the association restore the river.           On 10 April 1984 the County Administrative Board refused to examine the merits of the applicants' request on the ground that the decision of the Frontier River Commission was not subject to appeal.           The applicants appealed to the Government.   On 7 June 1984, the Government (the Ministry of Agriculture) rejected the appeal stating that, under Chapter 8 Section 15 of the Frontier River Agreement (gränsälvsöverenskommelsen), decisions by the Frontier River Commission become effective immediately except for issues concerning compensation for land taken or for losses, damages or interferences or for legal costs, and the applicants' appeal did not concern such compensation.           The applicants then reported to the public prosecutor that the Haapakylänsaari road association had violated the Water Act (vattenlagen) in connection with the construction of the road.   After examination and appeals from the applicants, the Regional Prosecutor's Office (regionåklagarmyndigheten) of Luleå decided, on 10 September 1986, not to institute any criminal proceedings.           The applicants complained to the Chancellor of Justice (justitiekanslern) who in a decision of 8 December 1986 found that the Frontier River Commission was an inter-state organ not subject to the supervision of the Chancellor of Justice, but that the Swedish members of the said Commission were subject to his supervision.   The Chancellor of Justice then examined the applicants' separate complaints.   As regards the complaint that the Frontier River Commission had not submitted the issue of the construction of the road to the Governments of Sweden and Finland, the Chancellor of Justice found no reason to criticise the Frontier River Commission's assessment. Regarding the complaints about the Commission's determination of the applicants' reports on the construction, the Chancellor of Justice noted that it was not the task of the Commission, but of the competent state authorities, to interfere and take steps if measures were taken in conflict with the relevant provisions.     COMPLAINTS           The applicants complain that the provisions of the Frontier River Agreement and the exercise of power by the Frontier River Commission are incompatible with the Convention.   In particular, the Frontier River Commission's decisions are not subject to appeal to a body satisfying the conditions of Article 6 of the Convention.           The applicants also allege a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, in that they do not have any effective remedy for alleged violations of their Convention rights.           Finally, the applicants maintain that the Frontier River Agreement mainly affects the population in the Torne valley, which is a Finnish speaking minority, and that, consequently, there has been a breach of Article 14 of the Convention.     THE LAW   1.       In accordance with its case-law the Commission may only examine an application insofar as the applicants themselves can be said to have been the victims of the facts they complain about.   The Commission cannot examine general complaints on behalf of the population of the Torne Valley (cf.   No. 9297/81, Dec. 1.3.82, D.R. 28 p. 204).   2.       The applicants' personal complaints are directed against the decisions taken by, and the activities or inactivity of, the Finnish-Swedish Frontier River Commission.   The said Commission is an inter-state body created by an Agreement between Finland and Sweden. The decisions of the Frontier River Commission are, insofar as relevant in the present case, not subject to appeal to any Swedish court or other authority.           The Commission considers that it can leave open the question as to whether or to what extent the Swedish Government can be held responsible under the Convention for decisions or measures taken by the Frontier River Commission.   Even assuming that the Government could be held responsible the application is inadmissible for the following reasons.           Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention provides that the Commission "may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, ..., and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken."           The Commission considers that the applicants' complaints to the public prosecutor, the Regional Prosecutor's Office and the Chancellor of Justice cannot in the circumstances of the present case be regarded as such "remedies" which should be taken into account when calculating the six months period laid down in Article 26 (cf. No. 9959/82 and 10357/83, Dec. 14.3.84, D.R. 37, p. 87).           Consequently, even if it were accepted that the applicants' appeal to the Government was a "remedy" for the purposes of Article 26 (Art. 26), the application has nevertheless been lodged out of time since the Government's decision was dated 7 June 1984 and the application was introduced on 25 October 1986.           It follows that the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention for failure to comply with the six months rule.           For these reasons, the Commission           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.         Secretary to the Commission                President of the Commission                (H. C. KRUGER)                            (C. A. NØRGAARD)