APPLICATI[ON/RE;QUETE l'Q° 10842/84, Allan JACOBSSON v/SW'EDEN Allan .IACOBSSON c/SiJÈDE DECISION of 15 April [986 on the admissibiBty of the application DÉCISION du 15 aviil 1986 sur la recevabilité de la requête Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Conveniüon : Questiom of whether an âction concerning a proloiged building prohibition involves civi! rights and obligations and whether it constitutes a genuine and se rious dispute between the owner and the authorities (Complaint de(lared admissible) . . I Artiele 2.5 of the Convend'on : Someone who compdains about a prolonged buüding prohibition affecting his propert), can claim to be a victim of aviolâtion of the Convention . Article 26 of the Convention : Examination of the reinedies available in Sweden against a prohibition on building . In particular, th.e fact of nct having applied for a buiiiling permit when the prohibition ivas not inforce does not constitute failure to invoke a remedy. Article 1 of the First Protoeol : Does a prolonged building prohibition constitut e an infi-ingement of the right to tke peaet^fùl enjoyment of possessions ? (Complain t declared admissible) . Article 6, paragraphe 1, de la ConvenHon : Question de savoir si un litige concer- ~ nant une interdiction prolangée de construire porte sur des droits et obligatioas de caractère civil ei's'i1 constilue une contestation réelle et sérieuse entre le propriétaire et les autorités (Grief déclaré recevable) . Article '1,5 de ila Convention : Peut se prétendre victime d'une violation cle la Convention celui qui se plaint d'une interdiction prolongée de construire grevant sa propriété: 163 Article 26 de la Convention : Examen des recours disponibles en Suède contre une interdiction de construire. En particulier, le fait de n'avoir pas sollicité un permis de construire à l'époque où l'interdiction n'était pac en vigueur n'équivaut pas à l'omission d'exercer un recours .Article 1 du Protocole addidonnel : Une interdiction prolongée de construire constitue-t-elle une aueinte au droit au respect des biens ?(Grief déclaré recevable).' THE FACTS ((rançais: voir p. 175) The facts of the case, as they appear from the parties' submissions, may be summarised as follows . The applicant is a Swedish citizen born in 1927 and resident at R6nninge . Hè is a building engineer by profession. He is represented before the Commission by Mr. Hasse W. Tullberg, a lawyer . The particular factsof the case - In 1974, the applicant bought a property of 2,644 m' called Salem 23 :1 situated in the centre of Rbnninge in the municipality of Salem, a suburb south west of Stockholm. On this property is situated a one family house in which the applicant lives. The property has been subject to a prohibition on construction since 1965 . The applicant's property is situated in an area for which a subdivision plan (avstyckningsplan) has been in force since 1938. When the applicant bought the property it was also subject to a building prohibition which had been in force since 1965 and to an area plan (omrgdesplan) according to which the property was supposed tô be used mainly as a public area . The prohibition on construction issued by the County Administrative Boar d (liinsstyrelsen) on 21 September 1965 applied to the central parts of RSnninge in the municipality of Salem . The decision was valid for one year . The prohibition on construction has subsequently been prolonged by the County Administrative Board upon application from the municipality for one or two' years each time . Prohibitions on new construction pertaining to Salem 23 : lhave been issued fo r the following periods: ` • 21 September 1965 - 21 September 1966 16 June 1967 - 14 June 1969 28 July 1969 - 1 July 197 04September1970-27August1980 164 27 March 1981 - 27 Ma-ch 1982 6 June 1983 - 6 Juns 1984 11 July 1984 - 11 July 198 5 1I July 198'i - I1 July 1987 On 1 .Ianuary 1974 the tnunicapality of Salem was merged with the municipality 'of Botkyrka, but on 1 January 1983 Salein again became a separate municipality . Upon request from the applicant the Building C'ommittee (byggnadsnïmnden) decided on 28 Jannary 1975 to inform the applicant imrer aia that the Conunittee vvas not prepared to permit the division of the applicant's property into smaller plots . The applicant turned to the County Administrative Board of the Stockholm ,County and requested that the municipality be ordened to adopt a city plan for the central pan[s of Rünninge . In its decision of 31 March 1976 the Board, while noting that only the Government were coinpetent to make the order reqnested, decided not to grant the request . The Board added, that the planning procedure was underway to such an extent that the Board did not find reason to suggest to the Gove.rnment that an order be given to enforce the plan . In 1975 the municipality stated thai: : "According to a survey plan for the southern parts of Salem adopted on 13 December 1972 the (applicant's property) is mainly situated in an area supposéd to be used as green space, streets and car parks . The property cannot be used for buildirig detached houses if the plan is to be followed. " On 15 January 1980 the Building Coinmittee, upon inquiry from the applicant, ireplied that it was not prepared to grant the applicant an exemption from the pro- ~hibition on constntction, or a build}ng perntit for the purpose of building a one family house and a garage on the properly . The applicant appealed to the County Administrativi : Board, cvhich by a decision on 25 April 1980 rejected the appeal. The County Administrative Board stated in its decision that it interpreted the decision of the Building Conimittee as a refusal to grant exemption from the prohibition on construction . It went on: - "According to a master plan adopted on 28 June 1979 by the Municipal Assembly ( .ommunfullmdktige) ancl relating m part of the municipality of Botkyrka thr, property is supposed to be used for building, blocks of flats of more than tvio storeys . This ase of ttte main patt of the property has also been indicated in an area plan of 1972 for the centre of Rdnnirige .IntheopinionoftheCountyAdministrativeBoardtheproposedbuildingsnra y be contrary to the aim of the prevailing building prohibition and hinder future town planning, where the question of using the property for other purposes can arise as indicated above . 165 In view of what has been said above and since there are no special reasons to accept the proposed buildings and to go against the Building Committee, bein gtheorganprimarilyresponsibleforthedevelopmentofurbanisation,the County Administrative Board rejects the appeal . "TheapplicantdidnotlodgeafurtherappealtotheGoverntttent,althoughh e was informed of the possibility to do so . On 6 June 1983 the County Administrative Board decided to issue a further prohibition on construction for the area in question . In its decision the Board noted inte ralia that the newly created municipality should have some time to determine its position in respect of the planning of Riinninge . It also stated that an application for a further prohibition on construction would have to be founded on a time-schedule for the amendments of the plan or on any other way of terminating the prohibition .TheaplicantapealedagainsthisdecisiontotheGovetnment,whichby adecisionof15December1983rejectedtheapeal . On 11 July 1984 the County Administrative Board issued a further prohibitio nonconstructionunderSection35oftheBuildingActforareainquestiona maximum period of one year . From the decision it appears that the municipality had submitted a document according to which work was to be carried out during 1984 for the purposes of establishing certain building plans . The applicant appealed to the Government, which on 8 November 198 4rejectedtheapeal . On 12 June 1984, the Building Committee with reference to a building prohib -itionunderSection35oftheBuildingActstated in an advance opinion that it wbul dnotbepreparedtograntheaplicantabuildingpirmit . The applicant appealed on the basis that the building prohibition referred to had ceased to be effective on 6 June 1984. In a new decision of 21 August 1984, the Building Committee conceded that a mistake had been made, and, therefore, quashed its decision of 12 June 1984 and took a new decision of similar contents since a new building prohibition was valid as from 11 July 1984 . Subsequently the County Administrative Board dealt with the applicant's appeal against the decision of the Building Committee of 12 June 1984 .TheBoardecidedtoquashtheBuildingComite'sdecisionof21August198 4 and to reject the appeal against the decision of 12 June referring to the fact that a, building prohibition was in force when the Board examined the case . The applicant has appealed against this decision to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrïtten) of Stockholm and to the Government . No decision has been handed down b ytheseauthorities . On 11 July 1985 the County Administrative Board again prolonged the prohibition on construction until 11 July 1987. This decision has not been subject to appeal . 166 On 23 Febmary 1984 the Municipal Council adopted a br :ilding programme according to which the area in which the applicant's property is situated should be used for the construction of tnulti-.-family houses in 1988. On 13 February 1984 the Board of ttte Muricipality adoptecl an are,a programtne which a?so foresees multifamily houses for the area in question . At the same time the Board stated ihat the plannin,g stiould be given priority . On 20 March 1986 the Municipal Council adopted an area plan for the area in question. The Swedish legislation on constnætion and urban planrin g A property owner's rights to erect buildings on his propery are regulated in the 1947 Building Act (byggnadslagen) and the 1959 Building OrcGnance (byggnadsstadgan) . Section 1 of the 1947Act sets forth the requirement of a permit forconstnrction, according to rules laid down by the Governmelt . Such rules are to be found in Section 54 of tha 1959 Ordinance . As an example, a permit is required for all new c'onstructions. However, permits are not required flar ttie cons[ruction of certain buildings for public use, or smaller additions to existing residences and farms or smaller houses on such estates . Section 5 of the Act also calls for an assessmem thai- the real estate is suitable from a general point of view for building purposes . Such an a;sessment shall be made by planning in accordance with the Act, except for areas classified as nonûrban (glesbebyggelse) or as "urban developments on a smaller scale" (tëtbebyggelse av mindre oinfattning) . For the latter categories, the required assessment may be mad, when examining an. application for a building permit . Plans and regulations for non planned areas Plans should take due consideration of public as well as individual interests . A so-called master plan (generalplan) encompasses the major guidelines witltin a commmnity or a part of a community . A tovvn plan (stadsplan) or a building plan (byggnadsplam) contains more I etailed regulations on the development of the area: For areas nol regulated by such plans, construction activities are ragulated by the Ordinance .Thedevelopinentsinareascoveredonlybyolder,so-callecsubdivisionplans (avstyci :ningsplaner), are governed by these plans as well as regulations for nonplanned areas (utomplansbestanvuelser) . . A master plan is to be drawn up by tlhe local municipality vrhen necessary Yor the guiclance of further detailed planning regarding the'st.ructuri-ig and developing ôf the community . Upon request by the municipality, the master plan may be 167 confirmed (faststïlld) by the County Administrative Board . Complete master plans are seldom deemed necessary . Instead, municipalities tend,to meettheir planning needs by using simpler, less detailed plans, usually described as area plans (omrâdesplaner) . Such plans are not governed by law. The Government may decide that a master plan must be prepared, when needed to further a development which is deemed urgent from a national point of view . A master plan cannot cover an area which is already covered by a town or a building plan . A town plan is to be drawn up by the municipality, when necessary as a result of the urbanisation of the community, in order to regulate constructions . Such a plan must contain information about the borders of blocks (byggnadskvarter), of public areas (allmdnna platser), and of special zones, such as railway areas, harbours, recreational (sports) areas, etc . The town plan must also contain the further provisions deemed necessary regarding constructions in various areas, or regarding the use of properties in these areas. The Ordinance mentions inter alia specific use of blocks, prohibitions against construction on part of a block, construction methods to 1 be used, the number of permitted buildings on a certain site (tomt) and the permittedS surface area, location, height, and the number of flats in a building . • A town plan must be confirmed by the County Administrative Board, in order to become valid. Should a municipality, although th ere is need to work out a town plan, fail to issue one, the Government may order the municipality to present such a plan within a fixed time limit for the Government's approval . A town plan gives the municipality a right to redeem areas necessary for public use. The redemption value is decidedby the Real Estate Court (fastighetsdomstolen), and shall be assessed according to the rules laid down in the Expropriation Act (expropriationslagen) . If an area has become densely populated or if such a situation is expected t o emerge in the area, but this situation does not call for a town plan, a building plan , must be issued by the municipality, to the extent necessary for the regulation of the development of the area . A building plan is largely the same as a town plan, but doe snothaveasfar-reachinglegalconsequences . A building plan must also be validate dthroughaconfirmationbytheCountyAdministrativeBoard,whichmayisuesuc haplanifthemunicipalityhasfailedtoproduceone . Subdivision plans only describe borders of blocks and land intended for public use. 168 All timr categories of plans ntay be cancelled by decision of the County Administrativc Board : Such a decision must take the interests of property owners into due considc.ration .Rcgulationsfornon-plannedareas irver nliq prohibit constructitins of new I buildings, unless suilable from a general poini of view . The same assessmerit regarding general suitability is niade, whether executed as a part of the planning procedure or as :r ps,rt of tFe processing of an application for a building permit for an area not covcred by town or building plans . Fr0/IiiSili0ln6 OR t'orGlYUttiuA Under Seccion 56 of the Building Ordinance . the authorities may not grant permiis for new buildittgs, which would result in an urban development (iritbebyggelse) within an area which is not covered by a town plan or a building plan . The concept of "urbandevelopmenf' is defined as such concentrated building which I would immediately or in the near futurc call for special installationsfürcornnton needs (ag . water supply, sewage systemr, and other utilities) . This legal prohibition has been appliec .in an extensive way . Areas govcrned by subdivision plans are exenipted on a general basis from the so-called univercal prohibi.tion on construction in urbanised areas . The County Administrative Board may, however, include also areas covered by subdivision plans I tinder this prohihilion . 'Phe prohihtion on construction in urbaniséd areas does net pertain to allkinds of coi:struction . Once a proposal for a town plan has been suggéstedtor a certain arca . it may become impartanl to prevent construction even cf snialler houses or changes to a howce, which would normally not requireany public supply of utilities . I Furthernwre, theprohibilion doer, nol amonwtically extend to areas covered by subdivision plans . P, lown plan has io be designed accurding to the existing situation . From ntany points of view, changes in this situation occurring during the planming procc'<lurrc .re very inconvenient . Therevüre, on ati application by thelocal communitv. the County Administrative Board niay issue a prohibiiion against alI itonsIructinn of new buildings, or allainst measures eLuivalent to such constructions . pending thc cnteigcncc of a lown plan for the area . Such a prrhibition is valid for onc year only but may be prolonged for two years at a time . The prohibition is anmdled and replaced by another prohibition when lhe municipality has adopted a proposal tix a town plan .9'he new prohihition is automalically cancelled when the ~ town plan has been confirmed . None of these prohibitions . however, is absolute, excmptions may be granted . Naturally, exemptions will not be granted, stawld the planning procedure he obstructed by the intended eonstruction . Fonnatiar, o('prnprrn' uniis On application, divisions of units of property are resolved by the Property Fori mation Agencies (fas(ighetsbildningsnryndigheterna) .'New units aié to bè designed 169 in such a way as to make all units concerned permanently suitable for their purpose, with regard to their location, size, and other prerequisites . Within town planned areas or areas subject to subdivision plans, a division must concur with the plan . Where other regulations pertain to the development of land, e .g. a prohibition on construction, the division has to be carried out so as not to obviate the purpose of the prohibition . If there are no plans for the area, divisions with a view to construc-, tion may not be made, if they were to impede appropriate use of the area, to result in inappropriate development or to obstruct appropriate planning for the area~ (chapter 3, sections 1 to 3 of the Act on Formation of Real Estate, fastighets-, bildningslagen, Section 12 of the Act Promulgating the Act on Formation of Real Estate) . Decisions and review of decision s A person who wants to erect a building for which a permit is required must file an application with the local Building Committee . An application coming under any of the above prohibitions is in practice considered as including also an application for exemption from the prohibition in question . The applicant may, on the other hand, choose to apply for an exemption only, in order to apply for his permit when the matter of exemption has been resolved . The examination of an application for a permit involves ascertaining that the intended building will not run counter to any confirmed plan, or, as the case may be, to the regulations of non-planned areas, or to a prohibition on construction, and that it satisifies technical demands on construction . In the absence of such obstacles, a permit should be granted . Should the intended construction require exemptions of any kind, the Building Committee must also take a decision on this matter . In case the Committee lacks legal competence to do so, it normally would refer the application as regards exemption to the County Administrative Board, suspending its decision on the permit issue, pending the outcome of the exception issue . A widely used practice among property owners is to request an "advance opinion" (fbrhandsbesked) regarding a certain type of construction on a specified unit of property . A negative response from the Building Committee is regarded as a rejection of an application for exemption, provided the execution of the matter and the substance of the decision justify such an interpretation . The reason is that this will give the applicant the right of appeal against statements by the Committee which in reality mean that no exemption is granted. Decisions by the Building Committee to refuse building permits and exemp - tions may be appealed to the County Administrative Board .AdecisionbytheCountyAdnilnistrativeBoardtoissueaprohibitiononconstruction or,asthe first instance, to refuse an exemption from a building prohibition 170 ~ may be appealed to the Government, as may a decision by the Board to reject an appeal against the Building Committee's decision not to graut an exemption. A decision of the County Administrative Board to reject an appeal regarding an appli- I cation for a building permit is, however, appealed to the Adntinistrative Court of Appeal. Decisions by the Administrative Court of Appeal map be appealed tcr the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrütten), which may relhse to grant leave to appeai. When a decision by tlie County Adtninistrative Board has resolved both issues (the permit and the exemption) it may be appealed to, the Adntinistrative Court of Appeed . If this court should come to the conclusion that an exemption is not i-equired, the mattez will subsequently be processed as a simple matter of permit . Gtherwise the Administrative Court of Appeal will transfer the matter to the Governmenr. for a decision. The Court also rnakes a staternent to the Government on the perrnit issue. For practical reasons, the County Adnrinistrative Boards tty to keep matters of exemption apart from matters o1' permit, suspending their resolution on Ihe latter issue until a final decision has been reached on the, former . A special nile applies when an application for a permit has been denied for the reasori only, thar it does not meet the general requirement of suitability laid down in the regulations for non-planned areas . Such a denial by the Ccunty Administrative ~ Board may be appealed only to the Government . Should a tnatter of permit, on I appeal to the Administrative Conrt of Appeal, inchrde this issue of suitability, the Court is to refer Ihe matter together with a statement of its own, to the Government . There are no limits to the number of times a property owner may apply for permils or exemptions . The authorities are obliged to examine the matter in full each time they are seized with an application .Tdoreover,theconfirnrationoftowuandbuildingplansbytheCountyAdtnin- I istrative Board may be appealed to the Government by the property owaers con- ~ cerned . The owners may also appeal against a decisiion to refuse confirmation of an adopted proposal for a plan . However, they cannot formally requirea plan to be prepared by the local municipality or the County Administrative Board, nor can they demand an injuriction by the Government, ordering a municipality to prepare a proposal for a town plan . Decisions hry the Property Formation Agencies may be appealed to the IZeal Estate Courts, whose decisions in turn may be appealed to ttie Court o1' Aplpeal (hovriitten), and from there to the Supreme Court (hdgsta domstolen) . Supervisoiry func5ons - 7me County Administrative Board supervises planning and construction ac- ~ tivities - including those of the Building Committees - within the comrty . The 171 National Board of Physical Planning and Building (planverket), which is a Govern- : ment Agency, supervises the same fi'elds on the national level . The Parliamentary Otnbudsmen supervise, on behalf of the Parliament, ineer' alia, the Regional Administrative Courts, the County Administrative Boards, and the ; Building Committees, to ensure that they act according to laws and statutes . Thei same supervision is, on behalf of the Government, carried out by the Chancellor of, Justice Qustitiekanslern) . None of these supervisorybodies may alter a decision by an authority . The' County Administrative Boards may, however, intervene by issuing prohibitions and 'injunctions . Otherwise, a supervisory body may only point to committed errors, e .g. by referring a matter to the district prosecutor to act upon as he sees fit . Those who, in the course of their official duties, deliberately or through gross negligence disregard their obligations, as laid down in laws and statutes, may be' fined or sentenced to prison by a court (chapter 20 of the Penal Code) . The Govern-i ment and the local communities are under certain conditions liable for damages, inter; a7ia, for property damage, caused by fault or negligence in exercising public auth-, ority. Litigations are tried by the general courts .COMPLAINT S 1 . The applicant complains that Article I of Protocol No. I has been violated, in'+ particular as a result of the long time the prohibition on construction has been in force and the expressed intention to deprive the applicant of his property in an uncertain future. 2 . The applicant also submits that Article 6 para . 1 ofthe,Convention has been' breached since he cannot have examined by a court whether the Building Act has been correctly interpreted by the authorities, namely whether a prohibition on construction may be prolonged without any work going on for the purpose of adopting a city plan. 3 . The applicant finally complains that he has had no effective remedy before a national authority, and that accordingly Article 13 of the Convention has been violated. THE LAW I . The applicant owns a property of 2,664 m2 on which there isahouse in whieti he lives. He wishes to divide the property and build a new house on the new unit of land. He complains about the fact that his property is subject to a prohibition ori construction . He submits that the prohibition is unlawful . The applicant alleges violations of Article 1 of Protocol No . I and Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention . Hë also alleges violations of Articles 17 and 18 of the Convention . 172 The applicant has in particular complained that the cturation of the prohibitions on construction violates Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 . He has also submitted that the prohibtion is unlawful pointing out that the municipality has never had the intention of elaborating a town plan for the area but that it wishes to maintain the prohibition on construction enly to be able to prevent the division of property. As regards Article 6 of the Convention the applicant bas complained thal: he has noi: had the possibility of a court determination of the lawfulness under Swedish ,, . law of the prohibition on construction . T'he Government have submitted that the application is inadmissible fcr faiaure to exhaust domestic remedies, notably thepossibility te ask for a building permit before 6 June 1983 when the building prohibition v3as riot in force . Insofar as the complaint relatee to the period before 25 April 1980 the Go,ermnent snbmit in additicn that the applicant has not complied with Article 26 of the Convention sGnce he did not appeal against the decision of the County Administrative Board of 25 April 1980. In the alternative, the Government maintain tr,ât the application is manifestly ill-founded or even that the complaint is incompâtible ratione personae witli the provisions of the Convention since the applicant cannot reasonably claim to be a victim under Article 25 . As regards Article 6 of the Convention the Government have submitted that this i complaint should be declared inadmissible as it falls outside the scope of Article 6 ratione m.ateriae, since no "civil right" of the app!icant has been determined . Article L of Protocol No. 1 reads as follows : "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peacehd enjoyment of his possessions . No one shall be deprived of his posscssions except in the public interest and subject to the conditioris 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 Suite 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 penahies. " Article 6 para. 1 first sentence of Ibe Convention reads as follows :, "In the derermination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is emritled to a fair and public hearing within a teasonable time by an independent and impartialtribunal established oy law ." 'rhe Commission considers that the applicant is entitled under Article 25 of the Convention to claim that he. is the victim of a violation of the Convention as a result oftheprohibitiooonconstructionwhichisinforeeforhispropertyandwhichhas, subject ta soine minor interruptions, been in force since he bought the property in 1974 . 173 Accordingly, the Commission rejects the Government's submission that the complaint is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention . The Government have submitted that the applicant has not fulfilled the requirements of Article 26 of the Convention . In this respect the Conunission notes that with regard to the building prohibitions the applicant has appealed to the final instance, the Governmen[, against the building prohibitions which were issued on 6 June 1983 and on 11 July 1984 . In this respect he must therefore be considered to have exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 26 . The Government also maintain that the applicant failed to appeal to the Government against the decision of 25 April 1980 by the County Administrative Board and has, therefore, not exhausted domestic remedies at least as far as the application pertains to the time before that date. It is true that the applicant could have submitted a further appeal to the Government and the Commission accepts that this is a remedy which would normally be regarded as a domestic remedy for the purposes of Article 26. However, in view of the reasons for which the building prohibition was issued and the plans of the municipality, it must be regarded as excluded that this appeal could have any possibility of success . It cannot, therefore, in the particular circumstances of this case be regarded as an effective remedy, which the applicant was required to exhaust. The Convnission also notes that this was not a remed ywhichcouldopenanyposibilitytohavethelegalityunderSwedishlawofthe building prohibition decided by aSwedish court .TheGovernmentfurthermoremaintainthattheapplicantshouldhaveapplied • for a building permit during the periods when prohibitions on construction were not in force as a refusal to grant a building permit could have been challenged before the Administrative Courts . The Commission, however, is unable to accept this as an effective remedy in the particular circumstances of the present case . The appeal to the Administrative Courts in the circumstances referred to by the Government would not have prevented the authorities from renewing the prohibition on constmction, and such a prolongation of the prohibition would have prevented the courts fro m granting a building permit and the impossibility to challenge the lawfulness of the building prohibition before the courts would still have remained . In this connection it should be noted that, at one stage, on 12 June 1984 when a building prohibitio nwasnotinforce,theBuildingComitestatedinadecisionthatitwasnotprepared to grant the applicant a building permit . Even if this decision, as it appears from the subsequent decision of the County Administrative Board, may have been based on wrong reasons it was nevertheless in substance confirmed by the Board since a building prohibition was then in force . • It follows that the application cannot be rejected under Article 26 in conjunctio n with Article 27 .para . 3 of the Convention . 174 It renaains to be examined whether the applieant's comp'la ;nt under Article 1 of Protocol No . }_ is manifestly ill-foundcd and whether the complaint uncer Article 6 is Gncompatible ratéone, rr.ateriae with the ~Cônvention or manifestly illfounded. The first issue to be examined is whether in the circumstacces of the ca se the iprohibition on construction constitutes an interference with the applicant's right under Article 1 of Protocol No . I to peaceful enjoyment of his oossessions . If this 'were so, it would then have to be examined whether ttie interference is justified under Ihe terms of Article Lof Protocol No . 1 . As regards Article 6 of the Convention the issues to be decided are whether the decision to prolong the ~prohibition on construction on the applicant's property was decisive for a "civil right" ol'the applicant, and, if so, whe ther a genuine and serious dispute arose between th e applicaat and the Swedish auihoritiès in relation ,m the decision to prolong the building prohibition . In the affirmative, it would then have tc be deternmined whether the applicant had at his disposal a procedure satisfyl ing the requirements of Article 6 para . 1 in regard to that dispute . The Commission has made a preliminary exatninacion of these issues in the - light oF the parties' submissions . It considers that these issues are of such an im- I portant and complex nature that their determination requires an examination of the merits. These coinplaints must therefore be declared admissible, . i For these reasons, the Cominissio n DECLARE5 THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging th e nierits of the case .