CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 février 1991

.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 } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; 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. February 1991 Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1) - 12033/86 Judgment 18.2.1991 Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Deprivation of property Revocation of a permit granted in 1963 to exploit gravel: no violation Article 6 Article 6-1 Access to court Absence of judicial review of this decision: 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 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 A.   Article 1 rule applicable to the case No formal expropriation of applicants' property. Furthermore, consequences of revocation not sufficiently serious for it to amount to a de facto expropriation: land not left without any meaningful use; applicants still owners of gravel resources; their possibilities of continuing to exploit them had already been made uncertain by the changes in the law in 1973. Measure therefore a control of use falling within the scope of second paragraph of the Article. B.   Lawfulness and purpose Legislation had legitimate aim of protecting nature, an increasingly important consideration in today's society. Not established that interference contrary to Swedish law or pursued some other aim. 1964 Act indicated scope and manner of exercise of discretion conferred on authorities with sufficient precision. Absence of judicial review not in itself a violation of Article   1. C.   Proportionality Effects of revocation to be assessed in light not only of substantial losses suffered by applicants having regard to potential of gravel pit if exploited in accordance with original permit, but also of lawful restrictions on its use. When they initiated investments and exploitation in 1980, applicants could not, inter alia , as 1973 amendment authorised the revocation of permits such as theirs after ten years, have had legitimate expectations of being able to continue working the pit for a long time. Having regard also to closing-down period granted (almost four years), revocation not disproportionate to legitimate aim pursued. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE   1 OF PROTOCOL No.   1 "Discrimination" means, inter alia , treating differently persons in similar situations – applicants had not tried to refute view of European Commission of Human Rights that their situation not shown to be similar to that of companies whose permits not revoked, and it was not for the Government to demonstrate that cases were dissimilar – Court found no reason to assess evidence otherwise than did Commission – accordingly no issue of discrimination arose. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION Applicants' right to develop their property in accordance with applicable laws and regulations: a "civil" right. Also existence of a "genuine and serious" dispute over lawfulness of the impugned decisions: could be determined only by the Government as the final instance. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Pecuniary damage: no causal link with violation of Article 6 §   1 – no award of compensation. B.   Non-pecuniary damage: amount awarded on an equitable basis C.   Costs and expenses: claim relating to domestic and Strasbourg proceedings – partial reimbursement. Conclusion : defendant 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