[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Hellborg against Sweden - 47473/99 [2011] ECHR 1673 (08 August 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1673.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1673

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)160¹

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Hellborg against Sweden

(Application No. 47473/99, judgment of 28 February 2006, final on 28 May 2006)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern the authorities’ failure to comply with the obligation to issue a building permit to the applicant within the statutory time-limit (violation of Article 1, Protocol 1), the refusal by the Supreme Administrative Court to hold a hearing and the excessive length of certain proceedings before administrative authorities and courts (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:

- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- of general measures preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)160

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Hellborg against Sweden

Introductory case summary

The case concerns the authorities’ failure to issue a building permit to the applicant within the statutory time limit (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

It also concerns the refusal by the Supreme Administrative Court, in 1998, to hold a hearing on the applicant’s subsequent appeal against the refusal to issue the permit. The European Court found in this respect that the applicant’s appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court, the first and only judicial instance to deal with the subject of the appeal, was capable of raising such issues of law and of such complexity that no exceptional reasons could justify dispensing with a hearing (violation of Article 6§1).

Finally, the case concerns the excessive length of the proceedings before administrative authorities and courts (more than 13 years), in particular before the Building Committee (§60 of the judgment) (violation of Article 6§1).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

b) Individual measures

The Administrative Court Procedure Act allows the applicant, if he so wishes, to request the reopening of administrative proceedings found to violate the Convention. Moreover, the European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of the loss of real opportunities as well as for the non-pecuniary damage suffered.

Consequently, no other measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II. General measures

1) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: Given that the violation was due to an improper implementation of domestic law and that the case seems to be an isolated one, the Swedish authorities consider that no general measure other than publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to the relevant authorities seems to be needed.

2) Violation of Article 6§1 (lack of a hearing): Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act 1971, an oral hearing must be held if this has been requested by the person seeking judicial review and if it is not manifestly unnecessary. In this respect, the Swedish authorities indicate that the direct effect afforded by the Swedish courts to the European Court’s case-law seems to be sufficient to prevent similar violations.

3) Violation of Article 6§1 (excessive length of administrative proceedings): This violation seems to be due to the particular circumstances of the case and does not reveal any systemic problem of length of proceedings before the Building Committee. In any case, the recent practice of the Swedish Supreme Court based on the Law on Torts (Skadeståndslagen) clearly provides an effective remedy for excessive length of proceedings before administrative authorities.

The European Court’s judgment has been translated and published on the government’s website (www.manskligarattigheter.gov.se) and on the website of the National Courts Administration (www.domstol.se) which is accessible to the general public. Information about the judgment has also been put on the Human Rights website (www.manskligarattigheter.se) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Finally, the judgment has been sent out to the authorities and courts concerned, including the Construction Committee.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Sweden has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.