CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 17 mai 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 }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 22317/93                       by J.A., H.E. and L.W.                       against Sweden         The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 17 May 1995, the following members being present:              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE, Acting President            MM.    H. DANELIUS                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  S. TRECHSEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  F. MARTINEZ                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY              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 15 March 1993 by J.A., H.E. and L.W. against Sweden and registered on 23 July 1993 under file No. 22317/93;         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, A, B and C, Swedish citizens residing at Västra Frölunda, were born in 1916, 1921 and 1946 respectively. Before the Commission they are represented by their lawyer, Ms. Margareta Andersson, Gothenburg.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.         The applicants own four properties on the island of Vessingsö in the municipality of Gothenburg. In 1989-1990, the owners of another property on the island built a landing-stage in the adjoining waters. Neither this other property nor the waters border on the applicants' properties.         Under the Water Act (Vattenlagen, 1983:291), a permission is required for the construction of a landing-stage. As the builders had not applied for a permission before commencing the construction work, they applied to the Water Court (Vattendomstolen) of Vänersborg for a declaration under Chapter 4, Section 5 of the Act that the landing- stage was legal (lagligförklaring).         By judgment of 20 October 1990, the Water Court issued the requested declaration. Prior to the judgment the Court heard different property owners, including the applicants B and C who, inter alia, requested an investigation of the title to the waters in which the landing-stage had been constructed and claimed that the landing-stage obstructed the thoroughfare to their berths and that the construction work had damaged the sea bed and made the water muddy. The Court found that the municipality of Gothenburg was the registered owner of the waters in question and that the previous owner of the waters, by a 1934 agreement, had allowed the construction of a landing-stage. Before the Court, the municipality confirmed that the right conferred by the agreement applied also to the present owners of the property to which the landing-stage was connected. The Court further found that the landing-stage's impact on the navigability was very marginal and that the construction work had not caused any damage for the two applicants.         All three applicants, dissatisfied with the Water Court's declaration, lodged an appeal with the Water Court of Appeal (Vattenöverdomstolen), claiming that the waters around the island were jointly owned by the properties on the island and that the construction of the landing-stage had encroached upon their rights.         The Water Court of Appeal investigated the title to the waters in question and found that in 1909 the waters around the island had been divided into separate properties and, thus, had not been jointly owned by the land owners on the island. These water properties were now owned by the municipality of Gothenburg. As the applicants had no rights to the waters and as the landing-stage did not encroach upon any essential interest of their properties, the Court concluded that the applicants had no standing in the case (talerätt). By decision of 23 June 1992, the Court, therefore, dismissed the case.         On 25 September 1992 the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) refused the applicants leave to appeal.   COMPLAINTS   1.     The applicants complain, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that their rights as part-owners of the waters in question have been violated, as the courts did not sufficiently investigate the title to the waters.   2.     The applicants further complain that their rights under Article 6 of the Convention have been violated as their appeal was dismissed because of lack of standing.   THE LAW   1.     The applicants complain that their rights as part-owners of the waters in question have been violated, as the courts did not sufficiently investigate the title to the waters. They invoke Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention, which provides the following:         "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful       enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of       his possessions except in the public interest and subject       to the conditions provided for by law and by the general       principles of international law.         The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way       impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it       deems necessary to control the use of property in       accordance with the general interest or to secure the       payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."         The Commission recalls that the Water Court and the Water Court of Appeal, after having investigated the matter, concluded that the municipality of Gothenburg had the title to the waters in question and that, thus, the applicants were not part-owners of the waters. The Commission finds that the applicants' submissions do not give cause to call into question this conclusion. Thus, the applicants have not established that they have any rights to the waters. The Commission further finds that the applicants have not shown that the construction of the landing-stage has encroached upon the use of their properties.         The Commission therefore concludes that the applicants have failed to establish an interference with their property rights.         It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill- founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.     The applicants further complain that their rights under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention have been violated as their appeal was dismissed because of lack of standing. Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) reads, in relevant parts, as follows:         "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations       ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing ... by [a] ...       tribunal ..."          The applicants maintain that in the Water Court of Appeal's decision to dismiss the case and the Supreme Court's later refusal of leave to appeal the question of ownership to the waters in question was not determined.         The Commission recalls that the court proceedings in the present case concerned the legality of the landing-stage under the Water Act. Even assuming that these proceedings involved a determination of the applicants' civil rights and that thus Article 6 (Art. 6) is applicable to the present complaint, both the Water Court and the Water Court of Appeal investigated the applicants' claim that they were part-owners of the waters but found that they had no rights to them. Both courts further examined the possible encroachment of the landing-stage upon the applicants' rights.         The Commission therefore concludes that the facts submitted do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the applicants' rights under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.         It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.            Secretary to                        Acting President of       the Second Chamber                      the Second Chamber         (M.-T. SCHOEPFER)                         (G.H. THUNE)