CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 26 avril 1989

.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 }  The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the convention"),   Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the convention relating to the application lodged on 11 May 1983 by Mr Väinö Uskela against Sweden (Application No. 10537/83);   Whereas on 1 September 1987 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the convention elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the convention;   Whereas in his application the applicant complained inter alia that he had no possibility of having a dispute relating to the issuing of an expropriation permit affecting property owned by him examined by a tribunal satisfying the requirements of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the convention, and that the continuation of the expropriation procedure after he had restored the property was contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the convention;   Whereas the Commission declared the application admissible on 10 October 1985 as regards the above-mentioned complaints and in its report adopted on 16 July 1987 expressed the opinion:   - unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the convention;   - by seventeen votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1);   Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the convention;   Whereas, during the examination of the case, the Committee of Ministers was informed by the Government of Sweden that, under the terms of the Act of 21 April 1988 on judicial review of certain administrative decisions, administrative decisions relating to the application of legal provisions referred to in Chapter 8, sections 2 and 3, of the Instrument of Government would henceforth, at the request of a private subject party to the proceedings, be reviewed by the Supreme Administrative Court, that the said Court would examine whether a decision was contrary to any legal rule, and that the Act applied inter alia to decisions on the issuing of expropriation permits;   Having examined the proposals made by the Commission concerning just satisfaction for the applicant,   Decides, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the convention:   a. that there has been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the convention in this case;   b. that there has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the convention in this case;   Takes note of the information provided by the Government of Sweden;   Recommends, under Rule 5 of the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers for the application of Article 32 (art. 32) of the convention, that the Government of Sweden pay to the applicant 20 000 Swedish crowns in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 60 000 Swedish crowns in respect of costs;   Decides, therefore, that no further action is called for in this case.