AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                       Application No. 11309/84
                       by Mats JACOBSSON
                       against Sweden


        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 8 March 1988, the following members being present:

              MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
                  J.A. FROWEIN
                  S. TRECHSEL
                  G. SPERDUTI
                  E. BUSUTTIL
                  G. JÖRUNDSSON
                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
                  A. WEITZEL
                  J.-C. SOYER
                  H.G. SCHERMERS
                  H. DANELIUS
                  G. BATLINER
                  J. CAMPINOS
                  H. VANDENBERGHE
             Mrs.  G.H. THUNE
             Sir  Basil HALL
             MM.  F. MARTINEZ
                  C.L. ROZAKIS
             Mrs.  J. LIDDY

             Mr.  H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

        Having regard to the application introduced on 5 August 1984
by Mats Jacobsson against Sweden and registered on 17 December 1984
under file No. 11309/84;


        Having regard to:

  -     the report provided in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of
        the Commission;

  -     the Commission's decision of 8 October 1985 to declare the
        application inadmissible on the basis that the applicant had
        not shown that he had complied with the six months rule laid
        down in Article 26 of the Convention;

  -     the Commission's decision of 13 October 1986, on the basis of
        new information, to re-open the proceedings and to communicate
        the application to the respondent Government for written
        observations on the admissibility and merits;

  -     the Government's observations dated 15 January 1987;

  -     the applicant's observations dated 9 April 1987;

  -     the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure;

        Having deliberated;

        Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

        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 1953 and resident
in Stockholm.  He is a journalist by profession.  Before the
Commission, the applicant is represented by Mr.  Hasse W. Tullberg, a
lawyer.

        The particular facts of the case

        Since 1973 the applicant has owned a property, Tullinge 17:289
(previously Stg 3594) with an area of 2,079 m2 in the municipality of
Botkyrka.  On the property there is a small house.

        At the time the applicant acquired the property in 1973 the
area was subject to a building plan drawn up in 1938.  A principal
rule according to that building plan was that no plot should be less
than 1500 m2 in area.  However, a plot with a smaller area, although
no less than 1000 m2, could be permitted within an area where sewage
and water-supply systems in accordance with a plan approved by the
local health authorities had been installed before the buildings were
erected or in connection therewith.

        Furthermore, after 4 June 1954, except for some short periods,
there has been a building prohibition under Section 109 of the
Building Act (byggnadslagen) in that part of the planning area in
which the property is located, pending an amendment of the building
plan in force.  After 4 June 1954 construction was prohibited in the
area also under Section 110 of the Building Act pending the
construction of adequate roads, water-supply and sewage systems.

        Since 1973 there has been a building prohibition pursuant to
Section 109 of the Building Act on the applicant's property according
to decisions of the Stockholm County Administrative Board
(länsstyrelsen) of 28 July 1972, 20 August 1974, 31 August 1976,
11 January 1979, 11 January 1980, 31 March 1981 and 31 August 1982.
These decisions have been valid during the periods up to and including
1 September 1978, 11 January 1979 - 11 January 1981, 31 March 1981 -
31 March 1982 and 31 August 1982 - 31 August 1983.  Appeals were
lodged with the Government against the County Administrative Board's
decisions of 20 August 1974 and 31 August 1982.  The Government
rejected the appeals on 9 October 1975 and 19 May 1983, respectively.

        In 1975 the applicant complained about the inconveniences
resulting from the sewage system in the area.  As a result the
County Administrative Board ordered that the municipality should,
before the end of 1982, install sewage pipes in the area where the
applicant's property is situated.

        On 16 December 1982 the Municipal Council (kommunfullmäktige)
adopted a proposal for amendments to the building plan for the area in
which the applicant's property is situated.

        The applicant objected to the proposed building plan.  The
amendments were, in the applicant's submissions, mainly unjustified
restrictions as regards construction and contained a provision that
building plots must be at least 1,500 m2.  The previous building plan
allowed for building plots of at least 1,500 m2, and if certain
conditions relating to the water and sewage system were fulfilled,
1,000 m2.  The applicant alleged that the result of the amendments was
that properties, including his own, which previously had two building
rights were deprived of one of them.  However, the building plan was
confirmed by the County Administrative Board on 4 July 1983 pursuant
to Section 108 of the Building Act.  In its decision the Board inter
alia gave the following reasons:

"The aim of the plan pursuant to the description is
to regulate the conditions for the properties affected by
the development of the water and sewage system until the
town plan can be made on the basis of the ongoing area
plan.  Therefore there is a general interest not to
prejudice the forthcoming planning.  The present low
utilisation of the land, controlled with regard to location,
must be seen as a consequence of this.  The County
Administrative Board finds the municipality's assessment
in this regard to be acceptable.  Nor can a low degree
of exploitation as such be considered to contravene the
Building Act.

As regards the building right the County Administrative
Board observes the following: Stg 3594 comprises 2,079 m2.
The existing plan from 1938 allows for building plots of at
least 1,500 m2.  Where the property is situated in an area
where water and sewage pipes have been installed before or
in connection with the construction in accordance with an
approved plan of the Health Care Board, (hälsovårdsnämnd),
it is permitted to reduce the area of the building plots,
but not to less than 1000 m2.  This condition must
presuppose some sort of private initiative for a common
installation for several properties in order to construct on
them.  Since the building prohibition was issued under
Section 110 of the Building Act in 1954 no measures have
been taken by the property owners with a view to arranging
any water and sewage installations.  The water and sewage
pipes which have now been installed have been so only in
order to remedy the sanitary inconveniences which have
arisen in the area despite large building plots.  The
conditions in the plan, according to which building plots of
less than 1,500 m2 may be permitted, cannot therefore be
considered to be fulfilled.  The County Administrative Board
therefore finds that there is no obvious right to divide Stg
3594 according to the plan in force.  In view of this and
having regard to the general interest of not prejudging the
forthcoming town planning the County Administrative Board
considers that the decision of the municipality not to agree
to (the applicant's) claim for further building rights is
acceptable."

        The applicant appealed to the Government, which on 19 January
1984 amended the decision of the County Administrative Board so as to
avoid the consequence that any new construction on the applicant's
property would necessitate the demolition of the existing house on the
property.  In other respects the appeal was rejected.

        The applicant then applied to the Supreme Administrative Court
(regeringsrätten) for re-opening of the matter.  This application was
rejected in a decision of 5 June 1984.

        The applicant states that his intention has always been to
divide his property and to build at least one more detached house.  He
also intends to enlarge the existing building.  The applicant's
request for division of the property has been rejected by the Building
Committee (byggnadsnämnden) which has a veto before the Property
Formation Authority (fastighetsbildningsmyndigheten).

        Legislation on construction and urban planning

        A property owner's rights to erect buildings on his property
are regulated in the 1947 Building Act ("the 1947 Act") and the 1959
Building Ordinance (byggnadsstadgan, "the 1959 Ordinance").

        Section 1 of the 1947 Act provides that construction on
property requires a building permit to the extent laid down by the
Government.  Such rules are to be found in Section 54 of the 1959
Ordinance.  A permit is required for all new constructions, except for
the construction 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 examination of whether
the property is suitable from a general point of view for building
purposes.  Such an examination shall be made by planning procedure in
accordance with the 1947 Act, except for areas classified as non-urban
(glesbebyggelse) or as "urban developments on a smaller scale"
(tätbebyggelse av mindre omfattning).  For the latter categories, the
required examination may be made 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 master plan (generalplan) encompasses the major guidelines
within a community or a part of a community.  A town plan (stadsplan)
or a building plan (byggnadsplan) contains more detailed regulations
on the development of the area.  For areas not regulated by such plans,
construction activities are regulated by the Ordinance.

        The developments in areas covered only by older subdivision
plans (avstyckningsplaner) are governed by these plans as well as
regulations for non-planned areas (utomplansbestämmelser).

        A master plan is to be drawn up by the municipality when
necessary for the guidance of further detailed planning regarding the
structuring and development of the community.  At the request of the
municipality, the master plan may be confirmed (fastställd) by the
County Administrative Board.  Complete master plans are seldom deemed
necessary.  Instead, municipalities tend to meet their planning needs
by using simpler, less detailed plans, usually described as area plans
(områdesplaner).  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 in the
national interest.

        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 (allmänna
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 be
used, the number of permitted buildings on a certain site (tomt) and
the permitted surface area, location, height, and the number of flats
of a building.

        A town plan must be confirmed by the County Administrative
Board, in order to become valid.

        Should a municipality, although there is a 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 decided by 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 to 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 does not have
as far-reaching legal consequences.  A building plan must also be
validated through a confirmation by the County Administrative Board,
which may issue such a plan if the municipality has failed to produce
one.

        Subdivision plans only describe borders of blocks and land
intended for public use.

        All four categories of plans may be cancelled by decision of
the County Administrative Board.  Such a decision must take the interests
of property owners into consideration.

        Regulations for non-planned areas inter alia prohibit
constructions of new buildings, unless suitable for general purposes.
The same examination regarding general suitability is made, whether as
part of the planning procedure or as part of the processing of an
application for a building permit, for an area not covered by town or
building plans.

        Building prohibitions

        Under Section 56 of the Building Ordinance, the authorities
may not grant permits for new buildings, which would result in an
urban development (tätbebyggelse) within an area which is not covered
by a town plan or a building plan.  The concept of "urban development"
is defined in Section 6 of the 1947 Act as such concentrated building
as would immediately or in the near future call for special
installations for common needs (e.g. water supply, sewage systems and
other utilities).  Section 56 thus provides for a general building
prohibition for certain areas.  This prohibition has been applied in
an extensive way.

        Areas governed by subdivision plans are exempted on a general
basis from the building prohibition in urbanised areas.  The County
Administrative Board may, however, also include areas covered by
sub-division plans under this prohibition.

        The building prohibition under Section 56 of the 1959 Ordinance
in urbanised areas does not apply to all kinds of construction.  When a
proposal for a town plan has been suggested for a certain area, it may
become important to prevent construction even of smaller houses or
changes to a house, which would normally not require any public supply
of utilities.  Furthermore, the prohibition does not automatically
extend to areas covered by subdivision plans.  A town plan has to be
designed according to the existing situation.  From many points of
view, changes in this situation occurring during the planning
procedure are very inconvenient.  Therefore, on an application by the
local community, the County Administrative Board may issue a
prohibition against all construction of new buildings, or against
measures equivalent to such constructions, pending the emergence of a
town plan for the area.  Such a prohibition is valid for one year only
but may be prolonged for two years at a time.  The prohibition is
annulled and replaced by another prohibition when the municipality has
adopted a proposal for a town plan.  The new prohibition is
automatically cancelled when the town plan has been confirmed.  None
of these prohibitions, however, are absolute, but exemptions may be
granted.  However, exemptions will not be granted, where the planning
procedure would be obstructed by the intended construction.

        Formation of property units

        Divisions of units of property are resolved by the Property
Formation Agencies (fastighetsbildningsmyndigheterna).  New units are
to be designed in such a way as to make all units concerned
permanently suitable for their purpose in view of their location,
size and other conditions.  Within town planned areas or areas
subject to subdivision plans, a division must be made in accordance
with the plan.  Where other regulations apply to the development of
land, e.g. a building prohibition, the division has to be carried out
so as not to obstruct the purpose of the prohibition.  If there are no
plans for the area, divisions with a view to construction 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.

        Decisions and review of decisions

        A person, who wants to erect a building, for which a permit is
required, must file an application with the 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 building prohibition 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" (förhandsbesked) regarding a certain type of
construction on a specified unit of property.  A negative reply
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 means that no
exemption is granted.

        Decisions by the Building Committee to refuse building permits
and exemptions may be appealed to the County Administrative Board.

        A decision by the County Administrative Board to issue a
building prohibition or, as the first instance, to refuse an exemption
from a building prohibition 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 grant an exemption.  A decision of the
County Administrative Board to reject an appeal regarding an
application for a building permit is, however, appealed to the
Administrative Court of Appeal.  Decisions by the Administrative Court
of Appeal may be appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court
(regeringsrätten), which may refuse to grant leave to appeal.

        When a decision by the County Administrative Board has resolved
both issues (the permit and the exemption) it may be appealed to the
Administrative Court of Appeal.  If this court should come to the
conclusion that an exemption is not required, the matter will
subsequently be processed as a matter relating only to the question of
a building permit.  Otherwise the Administrative Court of Appeal will
transfer the matter to the Government for a decision.  The Court also
makes a statement to the Government on the permit issue.

        A special rule applies when an application for a permit has
been denied for the reason only that it does not meet the general
requirement of suitability laid down in the regulations for
non-planned areas.  Such a denial by the County Administrative Board
may only be appealed to the Government.  Should a question concerning
a building permit, on appeal to the Administrative Court of Appeal,
include this issue of suitability, the Court is to refer the 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 permits or exemptions.  The authorities are obliged to
examine the matter in full each time they are seized with an
application.

        Moreover, the confirmation of town and building plans by the
County Administrative Board may be appealed to the Government by the
property owners concerned.  The owners may also appeal against a
decision to refuse confirmation of an adopted proposal for a plan.
However, they cannot formally require a plan to be prepared by the
municipality or the County Administrative Board, nor can they demand
an injunction by the Government, ordering a municipality to prepare a
proposal for a town plan.

        Decisions by the Property Formation Agencies may be appealed
to the Real Estate Courts, whose decisions in turn may be appealed to
the Court of Appeal (hovrätten), and from there to the Supreme Court
(högsta domstolen).

        Supervisory functions

        The County Administrative Board supervises planning and
construction activities - including those of the Building Committees -
within the county.  The National Board of Physical Planning and
Building (planverket), which is a Government Agency, supervises the
same fields on the national level.

        The Parliamentary Ombudsmen supervise, on behalf of the
Parliament, inter alia, the County Administrative Boards and the
Building Committees, to ensure that they act according to laws and
statutes.  The same supervision is, on behalf of the Government,
carried out by the Chancellor of Justice (justitiekanslern).

        None of these supervisory bodies 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 under Chapter 20 of the Penal Code (brottsbalken).  The
Government and the municipalities are under certain conditions liable
for damages, inter alia, for property damage, caused by fault or
negligence in exercising public authority.  Litigation is conducted
before the general courts.


COMPLAINTS

1.      The applicant complains that his right to use his property
according to the old plan has been revoked in the new plan without any
general interest having been substantiated.  Under the old plan he had
two building rights and now he only has one after the amendment.
Accordingly, the applicant alleges a breach of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 to the Convention.

2.      The applicant alleges a breach of Article 6 of the Convention
since his rights under the plan cannot be examined at an impartial and
public court hearing.

3.      The applicant also alleges a violation of Article 13 of the
Convention since there exists no "effective" remedy.


PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

        The application was introduced on 5 August 1984 and registered
on 17 December 1984.  It was declared inadmissible on 8 October 1985
since the applicant had not shown that he had complied with the six
months rule laid down in Article 26 of the Convention.

        On 13 October 1986 the Commission, on the basis of new
information, decided to re-open the proceedings and to communicate the
application to the respondent Government for written observations on
the admissibility and merits limited to the alleged violation of
Article 6 of the Convention.

        The Government's observations were dated 15 January 1987 and
the applicant's observations in reply were dated 9 April 1987.


SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

        A. The Government

        1.  The Swedish legislation relevant to the application

        Since the complaints in this case concern the consequences for
the applicant of an adopted building plan the following information on
the provisions regarding building plans (also known as local plans)
may be pertinent.

        If an area has become densely populated or if such a situation
is expected to emerge in the area, but this situation does not call
for a town plan, the municipality must see to it that a building plan
is drawn up, to the extent necessary for the regulations of the
planning of the area (Section 107 of the Building Act).

        A building plan - like a town plan - must delineate and state
the limits of the areas intended to be used for various purposes in
the plan, such as land intended for building purposes, as well as
roads and other public places.  If special regulations relating to the
development or the use of the areas concerned are required, such
regulations must also be incorporated in the plan.  Such planning
regulations can relate to the use of building land for certain
purposes, a ban on the development of a certain part of the building
land, the number of buildings on a certain site, the size of the site,
the surface area of the building, its height and the number of
storeys, etc.

        A building plan must be approved by the Municipal Council.
The matter can also be delegated to the Municipal Building Committee.
Before gaining legal force, decisions of approval must be confirmed by
the County Administrative Board.  An owner of land affected by a
County Administrative Board decision approving a building plan has a
right of appeal against the Board's decision to the Government.

        If a municipality fails to take the necessary steps to draw up
a building plan for an area where it is needed, the County Administrative
Board can have such a plan drawn up and approved for the area in
question (Section 108 of the Building Act).

        If the question has been raised of the drawing up of a
building plan for a certain area or of such a plan being altered, the
County Administrative Board - if the municipality so requests - may
prohibit new constructions in the area.  Such a building prohibition
may be issued for, at most, one year but can be extended by the County
Administrative Board for, at most, two years at a time (Section 109 of
the Building Act).  A County Administrative Board's decision on the
building prohibition or on the extension of such a prohibition can be
appealed to the Government.

        According to Section 110 para. 1 of the Building Act,
a new construction may not take place in conflict with a building
plan.  Under the second paragraph of that Section, a County
Administrative Board can prescribe that new constructions in an area
covered by a building plan may not take place without the Board's
permission before adequate roads, water-supplies and sewage systems
have been provided.

        Exemptions may be granted in individual cases from the said
building prohibitions.  Such a decision is taken by the County
Administrative Board or by the Building Committee in the municipality
if the County Administrative Board has delegated the competence to
grant exemptions to that Committee.  Nearly all municipalities have
such authorisation.

        A condition for the granting of an exemption from a building
prohibition in conflict with a building plan is that the Building
Committee approves the exemption from the plan.  This means that the
municipality has a right of veto in respect of exemptions from a
building plan.

        It is for the owners of the land to see to it that roads and
other communal amenities are completed within an area covered by a
building plan.

        A building plan or a town plan can be altered if required.
According to Section 23 of the Building Ordinance, the rules
concerning the adoption and confirmation of town plans and building
plans shall, in principle, also apply to the alteration or withdrawal
of such plans.  There are, however, no rules that indicate the
material conditions determining how alteration or confirmation is to
be decided.  Nor are there any regulations as to compensation relevant
to those situations.

        When considering whether the owner's right to build
according to a plan may be limited or withdrawn when altering the
plan, the authorities concerned must weigh the public interest of such
an alteration against the infringement of the private interest which
the decision can give rise to (Section 4 of the Building Act and
Section 9 of the Building Ordinance).

        In several rulings the Government have approved suggested
alterations to plans that have involved constraints according to
earlier plans.  This has also been done against the opinion of the
land-owners concerned.  In most cases it has been a matter of limiting
the maximum building area permitted so as to prevent people from
taking up permanent residence in an area intended for holiday
cottages.  A condition for approving these constraints has been that
the property concerned should not be diminished in value to any
appreciable extent.

        2.  The facts

        The applicant's property is situated at Katrinebergsvägen in
what is known as Tullinge Villastad.  This is a suburb of Stockholm,
in the municipality of Botkyrka, situated some 20 km south of
Stockholm.  Many of those living in this area work in Stockholm or in
its immediate surroundings.

        The municipalities south of Stockholm may be described as
small, old communities which have developed in farming districts and
which in the last decades have been affected by the sudden increase of
population in Stockholm.  During the first half of the 20th century
buildings for recreational purposes were erected rather haphazardly in
large areas of these municipalities.  These dwellings were preferably
situated in hilly forested areas.  Around the old communities areas
with sparse and simple one family houses have emerged.

        The accelerated population increase in the metropolitan area
of Stockholm paired with the lack of attractive housing in the city
itself has resulted - during the last decades - in a change of the old
communities into urbanised areas with rather a mixed profile, and in
an extended use of summer resorts for permanent residence.  In
particular, the conversion of summer houses has incurred grave
problems for the municipalities to meet the demands for communication,
water and sewage facilities, schools, etc.  The areas in question are
widespread, and the resources have not sufficed for urban planning at
a desirable pace.

        This planning is technically of a complex nature, because it
must be adjusted to the existing buildings in the area in question.
It is also difficult to administer, due to the high number of property
owners concerned, owners who often hold quite opposite opinions on
planning issues.  The conditions for planning are uncertain, taking
into account inter alia the difficulties with the coordination of
inter-urban communication.  Above all, road and utility constructions
are very expensive because of the character of the terrain and the
widely dispersed residences, which offer less adequate resources than
would normally exist for urban development.

        All this has resulted in the decisions to prohibit
constructions of new buildings with regard to planning, which is
necessary to put a stop to the development, often having been of long
duration.

        On the applicant's property there is a holiday cottage with an
area of 28 m2 which was erected in 1954.

        In a decision of 31 August 1976 the County Administrative
Board refused to grant a request from the applicant that the County
Administrative Board should draw up a new building plan for the
Tullinge Villastad area by virtue of Section 108 of the Building Act.

        After the applicant, amongst others, had complained of
sanitary inconvenience due to sewer discharge in the area in which
Tullinge 17:289 is situated, the County Administrative Board, in a
decision of 9 June 1981, instructed Botkyrka municipality to submit to
the County Administrative Board a confirmed time schedule for the
extension of the sewage systems within, amongst others, the area in
which the applicant's property is situated.  According to the
decision, extension of the sewage system was to be completed
before the end of 1982 for the area comprising Katrinebergsvägen.

        On 16 December 1982 the Municipal Council of Botkyrka adopted
a draft proposal for the alteration of the building plan for the area
in which the applicant's property is situated.  The draft plan meant
amongst other things that a plot, irrespective of whether or not
water-supply and sewage systems had been constructed, should not be
given an area less than 1500 m2.  As regards the applicant's property,
the draft proposal also meant that some parts of the property,
including the part where the existing residential building stands,
were not to be built upon.

        The applicant objected against the draft plan.  He argued,
among other things, that his rights had been overruled because his
"building right" permitted according to the earlier plan would be
reduced.  On 4 July 1984 the draft plan was confirmed by the County
Administrative Board.

        On 19 January 1984 the Government modified the County
Administrative Board's decision but only to the extent that the area
of the applicant's property, on which the residential building stands,
was exempted from confirmation.  The Government found that the fact
that the area had been marked as land not to be built upon in the
draft plan meant that construction measures were not permitted on the
property unless the residential building was demolished and that this
was not acceptable in the case.  The Government did not see any reason
to make any other amendments to the draft plans confirmed by the
County Administrative Board.

        In answer to a request by the applicant the Building Committee
in Botkyrka stated on 6 August 1974 that the Committee was not
prepared to grant an exemption from the building prohibition pursuant
to Sections 109 and 110 of the Building Act for an extension of the
existing residential building on the applicant's property to a total
area of 80 m2.

        In November 1974 the applicant inquired at the Building
Committee whether there was a possibility of dividing his property
into four plots for single-unit dwellings.  The Building Committee
decided on 25 March 1975 to inform the applicant that, at that time,
it was not prepared to recommend a division of the property, since an
inquiry into suitable ways of installing water supply and sewage
systems in the area was in progress and a division of the property
could jeopardise future detailed local planning.

        In February 1976 the applicant applied for a building permit
for conversion and extension of the residential building on the
property, which would mean that the area occupied by building would
increase from 28 m2 to 92 m2.  The Building Committee decided on
11 May 1976 not to grant an exemption from the building prohibition
pursuant to Sections 109 and 110 of the Building Act and therefore to
reject the application for a building permit.  The Building Committee
stated that the reason for its decision was that this construction
could obstruct the execution of a future new detailed local plan and
that the property at that time could not be connected to the
municipal water-supply and sewage system.  The County Administrative
Board rejected the appeal, lodged by the applicant against the
Building Committee's decision.  The applicant made an appeal to the
Government which in a decision of 13 September 1979 did not grant the
appeal.

        On 10 November 1981 the Building Committee decided to
inform the applicant in reply to a request for an advance opinion
(förhandsbesked) that the Committee was not prepared to grant
necessary exemptions from the building prohibition in force pursuant
to Sections 109 and 110 of the Building Act.

        On 12 March 1985 the Building Committee rejected an
application by the applicant for exemption from the provision in the
building plan in force that prescribes a minimum plot size of 1500 m2.

        3.  The admissibility

        Concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies the Government
do not submit that there are remedies not used by the applicant.  It
is only emphasised that, if the applicant applies again for a building
permit or sub-division of the property, this application cannot be
rejected on formal grounds, i.e. because a final decision has already
been taken on the matter (res judicata).  A new application to the
municipality for a dispensation from the building plan in force or for
an alteration of the plan leads to a new examination and a new
decision based on the facts relevant when the matter is considered.

        In the Government's opinion the main question is whether the
complaints can be considered to fall within the scope of Article 6 or
whether the application should be declared inadmissible for being
incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention.

        The Government have in several cases before the Commission
presented their views regarding the application of Article 6 to the
Swedish administrative procedural system.  These cases have in common
that the applicants have had no opportunity of having their cases
examined by a tribunal.  Nor is there such a possibility in regard to
the decisions to adopt or confirm building plans.  This leads to the
conclusion that, if the Commission should find that such decisions
involve a determination of a dispute related to the applicant's civil
rights within the meaning of the Convention, the applicant has had no
access to a procedure according to the conditions of Article 6.
However, the Government maintain that the decision now in question
does not relate to a determination of the applicant's civil rights and
the reasons are as follows.

        When acceding to the Convention, the Government were
convinced that proceedings, like the present ones, would not come
within the scope of Article 6 para. 1.  Such proceedings belong in the
field of public or administrative law.  They are dominated by
considerations of public interest and determined principally by
considerations of policy.  In the Government's view such an
interpretation is well in line with the wording of the text and is
also supported by the travaux préparatoires.

        The decision to adopt a building plan is taken by a local
parliamentary assembly (the Municipal Council) or by a special
committee to which such matters can be delegated.  Thus, the planning
as such is a matter on which the inhabitants of a municipality can
have influence by ordinary political means.  In the political debate
in a municipality the planning of the municipality can be an issue of
major importance.

        The planning is not aimed at increasing or diminishing the
values of private property, but it is obvious that in exercising
their duties and powers regarding planning the competent authorities
have to take decisions that influence the individual's possibilities
to use his property.  However, such effects cannot be considered a
"determination of (his) civil rights and obligations" within the
meaning of the Convention.  Decisions on planning are and must be a
matter in the field of public law.

        The applicant's complaints concern the exercise of the duties
and powers of the competent local authorities in implementing the aim
referred to in the decision of the County Administrative Board.  The
authorities in question have not determined any legal relationship
between the applicant and a third person.  The decisions by the Board
and the Government only concern the special kind of relationship which
exists between private subjects and the public, represented by
authorities acting under public law in the public interest.

        Furthermore, the question whether Article 6 is applicable in
this case is of great importance to the Government.  If Article 6 is
considered applicable in regard to decisions on planning, the
conditions for the whole Swedish system of planning would be changed
drastically.

        The possibility of having decisions on planning examined by
courts is something quite alien to the system of planning.  This
system is based on the idea that the municipality is responsible for
the use of land and the building within the municipality, and that the
state control of how the municipalities carry out their obligations
shall be exercised by the County Administrative Board and the
Government.

        Decisions on planning are carried out speedily by the County
Administrative Boards and the Government, since such decisions often
concern great economic interests of public as well as private nature,
and even short delays can cause great losses.  As a rule, such
decisions also concern a great number of persons.  If those were
granted the right to have decisions on planning examined by a court in
accordance with Article 6 of the Convention, which i.a. prescribes
public hearings, such a procedure would certainly entail a great risk
that the whole planning procedure would be delayed for a considerable
time.  Any such delay may lead to serious consequences for the
municipality, exploiters and others.  There is also an inherent risk
that there may be those who would use the possibility to go to court
in order to delay planning decisions which they are not prepared to
accept for political, ideological or other reasons not relevant in
this context.

        To sum up, the Government maintain that the decisions taken
by the competent authorities when altering the building plan have
involved no determination of a dispute which related to the
applicant's "civil rights" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of
the Convention.  Since the complaint thus falls outside the scope of
the Convention, the application should be declared inadmissible as
being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the
Convention.

        4.  The merits

        If the Commission does not share the Government's view
that the complaint falls outside the scope of the Convention, the
Government admit that there is no possibility for the applicant to
have the lawfulness of the decisions of the authorities regarding
the building plan determined by a tribunal.

        The Government emphasise that officials who have taken part
in a decision which is considered unlawful are responsible for this
decision and can be prosecuted for abuse of office or for careless
abuse of office under the Penal Code (brottsbalken).  However, in this
case there is, in the Government's opinion, no reason to question the
lawfulness of the decisions taken.  The applicant's allegations in
this regard are contested.

        B. The applicant

        1.  The legislation

        The scope of special regulations relating to the use of land
is limited.  Section 118 para. 1 of the Building Act states that,
without the landowner's consent, a building plan must not limit the
use of land to anything but private dwellings, roads or other public
places unless the landowner is compensated for the infringement on his
right to use it in a way which does not create an obvious discrepancy
as to the value of the land.

        According to Section 110 para. 3 of the Building Act the
Building Committee or the County Administrative Board may grant
exemption from the first and second paragraphs of Section 110.  The
County Administrative Board must not, according to Section 110 para.
1, grant an exemption unless supported by the Building Committee.  The
Building Committee thus has a right of veto.

        The Government's statement that a decision made by a Building
Committee on an exemption issue can be appealed to the County
Administrative Board is wrong.  Although Section 71 para. 1 of the
1959 Ordinance provides that an appeal may be lodged with the County
Administrative Board, paragraph 2 explicitly states that a decision by
a Building Committee on an exemption issue concerning a master, town
or building plan is without appeal.

        It is correct that a decision by a Country Administrative
Board comprising both an exemption and a building permit issue is to
be decided by an Administrative Court of Appeal.  However, this is
only relevant in the few municipalities where the Building Committee
has not been authorised to grant exemptions.  It is thus not relevant
in this case as the Building Committee has been given such authorisation.
Section 9 of the Act on Administrative Procedure (förvaltningsprocesslagen)
explicitly states that, if the court finds that the building permit
issue - to be dealt with by the court - and the exemption issue - to
be dealt with by the Government - cannot be dealt with separately, the
court is to forward both issues, together with the court's opinion,
for the Government to decide.  The court's opinion is not binding on
the Government.

        As the Government previously have stated that it is possible
to appeal against a decision on exemption from a building prohibition,
the applicant notes that the Government now accept that the municipality
has a right of veto.

        The Government's statements regarding landowners' responsibility
for roads are obviously oversimplified, irrelevant and misleading.

        Other municipal amenities are dealt with in miscellaneous Acts
and are the responsibility of different bodies.  The Public Water and
Sewage Act (lagen om allmänna vatten- och avloppsanläggningar) states
that it is the responsibility of the municipality to arrange for such
a system if there are health reasons for a system "to any larger
extent".  The County Administrative Board has the right to compel the
municipality to arrange for this, which was done in this case, as the
municipality was not complying with its obligations.  The fact that
the applicant was among the landowners who complained to the County
Administrative Board is irrelevant.

        The applicant wishes to submit that already in 1976 he offered
to arrange for these amenities at his own expense in a way acceptable
to the municipality but he never received any reply to his suggestion.

        Section 107 of the Building Act states that it is the
responsibility of the municipality to see to it that a building plan is
made if an area has or is likely to become densely populated and the
circumstances are such that there are reasons not to make a town
plan.  Chapter 7 of the Building Act deals inter alia with the
question of compensation when a building plan is made or revised.  The
Government's statement on the question of compensation is not correct.

        Section 4 of the Building Act provides that the public as well
as the individual's interests are to be properly considered.  The
authorities' right to impose a building prohibition when
altering a plan is regulated in Section 109 of the Building Act.  The
scope of the authority to limit the landowners' rights to build
according to the new or revised plan is regulated in Chapter 7 of the
Act.  Section 9 of the Building Ordinance states that "Planning is to
be performed in a manner beneficial to a suitable development within
the area covered by the plan. ...  Private interests are also to be
properly considered.  Unless there are particular reasons otherwise,
land is to be planned for purposes for which it is most suitable ...".
This is a suburb of Stockholm most suitable for commuting, something
which is done by so many people that the area has had commuter train
service for many years.

        The area was originally used for recreational purposes but,
due to the expansion of greater Stockholm and the improvements on the
housing market, the motorways and the creation of commuter train
traffic servicing greater Stockholm's southwestern suburbs, it has
developed since the Second World War into a suburb with a residential
population.  To allow only minor buildings with the hope that the land
will not be used for residential purposes is unrealistic in view of
the very bad housing situation in Greater Stockholm.  Large undeveloped
plots of land in an area equipped with roads, electricity, water and
sewage are not in the interest of the public.  Obviously, higher density
residential building gives the municipality greater possibilities to
have their expenses for e.g. the construction of the water and sewage
system, the snow ploughing of the roads, the schooling etc. paid, by
water and sewage connection fees (approximately 30,000 SEK per plot),
and personal income tax.  Further, as the municipality has given
exemption from the prohibition to some in the area, the municipality
is in the situation of actually providing the extra service required
by residents as compared to those who use their plot only for recreation.
It certainly is in the interest of the public to have as many as
possible contributing towards the costs.

        The applicant notes that the Government admit that a condition
for approving constraints has been that the value of the property
concerned should not be reduced to any appreciable extent.

        There is a considerable difference in the market value of the
applicant's property, had he been allowed to develop it for residential
purposes, as already stated in the plan of 1938, instead of having a
large plot with an inadequate building and no prospect of being
allowed to make his property meet modern requirements.

        The applicant submits that the constraint imposed regarding
the use of his property is in conflict with the potential value of the
land, which, according to Section 118 of the Building Act, should
entitle the applicant to compensation.

        2.  The facts

        The applicant notes that the Government now admit that the
area is a residential commuter suburb of Stockholm.

        The area concerned consists of meadows and is neither forested
nor hilly but with a smooth topography, making for example the
construction of the water and sewage system unusually cheap and
allowing the municipality to derive a profit from it, had it allowed
normal constructions to take place.

        The Government mention that only sparse and simple one-family
houses have been built.  This is the result of the constraints
mentioned previously and the fact that the new plan only allows for
one kitchen per building, which prevents the building of two or more
family houses and so called 'generation houses', that is houses which
accommodate two generations.

        The applicant feels that the Government offer excuses as to
the inadequate planning situation.  However, the law does not allow
any excuse for the municipality not to fulfil its obligation under
the law.

        It is also noted that the Government use expensive roads as an
excuse for the inadequate planning.  This does not conform with the
Government's statement that it is for the landowners to provide roads
within an area covered by a building plan.

        Decisions to impose building prohibitions in areas covered by
a building plan can only be taken on the conditions stated in Sections
109 and 110 of the Building Act.  Only temporary prohibitions are
permitted.  A prohibition according to Section 109 can initially
concern a period of at most one year and may later on be prolonged for
a maximum period of two years at a time.  The intention of the law is
thus not to have prohibitions with a long duration and the reasons for
deciding to impose a prohibition do not include the reasons given by
the Government.

        The applicant's house is 40 m2, not 28 m2 as stated by the
Government.  The land was originally 2,790 m2.  On the plot there was
a kiosk.  In 1974 the property was split into two plots, one of 2,079
m2 with the house and one plot of 712 m2 with the kiosk.

        The minimum rule of 1,500 m2 per plot concerned plots without
any sewage facilities.  The type of sewage system in mind for
permitting plots of a minimum of 1,000 m2 was a sewage pit, designed
as a dug well, divided vertically into three sectors, allowing for
sedimentation and natural decomposition before the water was to
infiltrate into the ground.  This has proved to be an acceptable
individual solution, if the area of infiltration was of adequate size.
In the 1960's and 70's other individual systems became more frequent,
such as completely closed systems for a house or group of houses.  The
tanks with the effluent are regularly pumped into the tanks of special
lorries, which unload at the local sewage treatment plant.  These
closed systems and the municipal sewage systems have made it possible
to build as densely as desired without any problems with effluent.
Thus, the normal suburban plot is nowadays 700-800 m2.

        The County Administrative Board refused a request from the
applicant to order a revision of the building plan.  The authorities
thus evidently had no intention of making a new building plan.  A
building prohibition under Section 109 of the Building Act can be
decided only if there is a new plan in the making.  Regarding Section
110 of the Building Act, it should be noted that only the question of
sewage was relevant in this case.  As the applicant in 1976 declared
himself prepared to construct a sewage system meeting the sanitary
requirements, he should have been given an exemption from the
prohibition and a building permit on the condition that he would meet
the municipality's requirement as to the disposal of the effluent.
However, he never received an answer to his offer.

        The applicant therefore submits that Section 110 was used
as a pretext for a prohibition.  The real reason is that planning is
technically complex and difficult to administer, as stated by the
Government.  Moreover, the conditions for planning are uncertain.
The County Administrative Board realised that such reasons had no
legal bearing and found that Section 110 could serve as a pretext.
Applicants for exemptions are without a right to appeal against
the municipality's decision not to grant an exemption.

        The applicant notes that the building prohibition based on
Section 109, that is to say on the ground that there is no sewage
system, was taken for the last time when the sewage system was well on
its way and lasted until 31 August 1983, although the sewage system
was ready before the end of 1982.

        In the building plan adopted in December 1982 the municipality
increased the minimum size of plots, although the municipal sewage
system had been built.  This and several other regulations result in
the plan having the same effect as a building prohibition.  This abuse
has recently become so frequent among the authorities as to give it the
nick-name 'a freezing plan'.

        A decision to make a town plan had not been taken by 4 July
1984.  There is still no such decision.  There was therefore no
ground for a prohibition, which then would have to be based on
Section 35 of the Building Act, which deals with building prohibitions
when town plans are in the making.

        There is nothing in the law indicating that the right to build
on plots of a certain size is dependent on whether or not the owner
has participated in some form of individual initiative for joint
installations for several properties, has solved the problem on his
own or can join with the municipal system.  It is also difficult to
see how such differentiated rights could be justified, since the
minimum sizes given were entirely for sanitary reasons and since it is
the obligation of the municipality to provide a water and sewage
system, for which they are entitled to levy a connection fee from the
landowners, the fee on the average covering the municipality's costs for
the system.

        It is to be noted that the applicant was denied permission to
extend the house (from 40 to 92 m2) on the grounds of Sections 109 and
110 of the Building Act although he was prepared to arrange an
acceptable sewage system at his own expense and despite the fact that
the municipality was not preparing a new plan, nor was planning to
begin one.  Section 110 cannot be used for future plans the creation
of which neither the municipality nor the County Administrative Board
have any intention to start.  The authorities thus use the said
provisions to give themselves unlimited power to impose prolonged or
more or less permanent building prohibitions instead of allowing them
to impose temporary prohibitions under carefully specified conditions.
The applicant therefore submits that the authorities violate Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

        In June 1981, the municipality was compelled by the County
Administrative Board to construct a water and sewage system in the
area before the end of 1982.  However, when the applicant in November
of the same year asked for an advance opinion (förhandsbesked), he was
told that the Building Committee was not prepared to allow him to
build on the grounds of the building prohibition under Sections
109 and 110.

        3.  The admissibility

        The applicant cannot accept the Government's view that these
proceedings belong to the field of public or administrative law, being
dominated by considerations of public interest and determined
principally by considerations of policy and therefore being outside
the scope of Article 6 para. 1.

        A democratically elected assembly and its committees may deal
with issues concerning the determination of an individual's civil
rights.  The fact that the assembly is legally elected does not give
it a right to violate the civil rights given in the Convention.  The
wrongfulness and potential danger of the Government's implied maxim
'Might is Right' may be said to be the reason for the Convention of
Human Rights.

        Section 17 subsection 4 of the Building Ordinance requires the
Building Committee to inform landowners affected by a change of plan
by registered letter.  According to Section 24 subsection 1 para. 1
of the Ordinance, the County Administrative Board has a similar
obligation to inform.  The law thus indicates that the decisions in
question relate to the determination of a civil right.

        The applicant cannot find that it can be of public interest to
deny his request to be allowed to make use of his land in a manner
allowed to others in the area.  In any case, the deprivation of his
rights by means of illegal, prolonged building prohibitions, the
denial of access to an impartial tribunal to examine his applications
for exemptions, the denial of access to a tribunal for the appeal
against the Building Committee's decisions etc., far exceeds any
public interest to have his land, without any support of the law, "in
store" whenever in the future the authorities decide to begin
contemplating the need for a town plan.

        The applicant is suffering the same deprivation of the
peaceful enjoyment of his property as were the applicants in the
Sporrong and Lönnroth Case (Eur.  Court H.R., Sporrong and Lönnroth
judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A No. 52).  His property is
under prevailing circumstances practically worthless since it is no
longer of a kind and at a place suitable as a holiday resort nor is
it of any value to those who wish to use it for permanent living at a
normal standard, which would necessitate a building permit.  He has
suffered the constraints at least since 6 August 1974, when he for the
first time received the Building  Committee's reply that it was not
prepared to grant an exemption, and is still suffering the
constraints, almost 13 years later.

        It should be pointed out that the applicant is not questioning
the authorities' right to implement the planning law in a way intended
by the lawmakers but the authorities' misuse of Sections 109 and 110
of the Building Act, when rejecting the applications for an exemption
and a building permit.

        It should be noted that the aim given in the decision of the
County Administrative Board - to protect possible interests to have
the land in status quo until the day in an uncertain future when the
land may be useful when making a town plan, the creation of which has
not yet been decided upon - is without the support of law and thus
constitutes abuse of power.

        The Government's statement that the County Administrative
Board and the Government are faster than a court implies that cases
are not examined in the same thorough way by the County Administrative
Board and the Government as they would be by courts.

        The applicant notes that the Government do not comment upon
the question whether the proceedings, other than those dealing with
the altering of the building plan, have involved a determination of a
dispute which related to the applicant's civil rights within the
meaning of Article 6 para. 1.  The applicant can only interpret this
as an admission by the Government.

        The applicant maintains that the case should be declared
admissible.

THE LAW

1.      The applicant complains that his right to use his property
according to the old building plan has been revoked in the new plan
without any general interest having been established.  He alleges a
breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention, which reads
as follows:

"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 issue in the case relates to the effects on the applicant's
rights of the amendments of the building plan which were finally
confirmed by the Government on 19 January 1984.

        It is recalled that the original building plan of 1938
provided that a building plot could not be less than 1,500 m2.  There
was an exception to this rule to the effect that a smaller plot could
be accepted for construction on the condition that it was not less
than 1,000 m2 and that a sewage and water supply system had been
installed either before or in connection with the construction in
accordance with a plan approved by the health authorities.

        The amended building plan does not contain any exception from
the rule that a building plot may not be less than 1,500 m2.

        Under Swedish law a property owner has the right to build on his
property provided that the intended construction will not run counter
to any confirmed plan, regulations for non-planned areas, or any
building prohibition and that it satisfies technical demands on
construction.

        The applicant submits that the result of the amendment of the
building plan is that he now only has the right to construct one house
whereas under the old plan he had two building rights.

        The Commission observes that since the applicant's property
has an area of 2.079 m2 he could under the old plan claim to have the
possibility to divide his property into two building plots provided he
satisfied the conditions of installation of a sewage and water supply
system.  Under the amended plan however, the applicant can only claim
to have one building plot since the minimum area for a building plot
is 1,500 m2.  It follows however from the decision of the County
Administrative Board of 4 July 1983 that it did not consider that the
applicant's property fulfilled the conditions under the old plan for
permitting building plots of less than 1,500 m2.

        The Commission considers that the amendment of the plan may be
regarded as an interference with the applicant's right to the peaceful
enjoyment of his possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 (P1-1).  In the view of the Commission, this interference falls
to be considered under the second paragraph of Article (P1-1) as being a
measure to "control the use of property".

        Consequently the Commission must examine whether the
interference with the applicant's right to the peaceful enjoyment of
possessions was justified under the second paragraph of Article 1 of
Protocol No.1 (P1-1).  This means that it must consider whether the
amendments of the building plan were "necessary to control the use of
property in accordance with the general interest".  The task of the
Convention organs in this context is to supervise the lawfulness,
purpose and proportionality of the restriction in question (cf. e.g.
No. 10378/83, Dec. 7.12.83, D.R. 35 p. 235).  The question of
proportionality requires a determination as to whether there was a
reasonable relationship between the means employed and the aim sought
to be realised or, in other words, whether a fair balance has been
struck between the demands of the general interest and the interest of
the individual.  In determining whether a fair balance exists, the
Contracting State enjoys a wide margin of appreciation with regard
both to choosing means of enforcement and to ascertaining whether the
consequences of enforcement are justified in the general interest for
the purpose of achieving the object of the measure in question (Eur.
Court H.R., Agosi judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A No. 108, p.
18, para. 52).

        The Commission finds that the adoption of the amended building
plan has a basis in Swedish law, notably Section 108 of the Building
Act.  It is satisfied that the interference resulting from the adoption
of the plan was lawful.

        As to the "general interest" served by the amended building
plan, the Commission notes that the purpose of the plan was to
regulate the conditions for the properties affected by the development
of the water and sewage system until a town plan could be made on
the basis of the ongoing area planning.  The Commission is satisfied
that, in general, the amendments of the building plan served the
"general interest".

        As regards the proportionality between the interference with
the applicant's property rights and the general interest pursued, the
Commission recalls that the applicant did not as such have a right to
build under the old plan.  Nor does he have such a right under the
amended plan.  It is true that the old building plan contained certain
provisions under which the applicant could claim to be allowed to
construct two houses on his property, whereas under the amended plan
he can only claim to be allowed to construct one house.  The
Commission considers that this change of the conditional rights to
build resulting from the building plans does not, in the circumstances
of the case, amount to an interference which must be given more weight
than the general interest served by the amendments to the building
plan.

        In view of the wide margin of appreciation enjoyed by the
Contracting States in this area, the Commission finds that the
interference with the applicant's right to the peaceful enjoyment of
his possessions cannot be considered to be disproportionate to the
legitimate purpose served by the amended building plan.  Consequently,
the interference was justified under the terms of the second paragraph
of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

        The Commission finds no indication of other possible issues
under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

        It follows that in this respect the application is manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of
the Convention.

2.      The applicant also alleges a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6)
of the Convention as his rights under the building plan cannot be
examined at an impartial and public court hearing.

        Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) first sentence reads as follows:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations
or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled
to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an
independent and impartial tribunal established by
law."

        The Government submit that the decisions taken by the
competent authorities when altering the building plan did not involve
any determination of a dispute which related to the applicant's "civil
rights" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the
Convention and that this part of the application therefore should be
declared inadmissible as being incompatible ratione materiae with the
provisions of the Convention.  In case the Commission finds that the
complaint is not incompatible with the Convention the Government admit
that there is no possibility for the applicant to have the lawfulness
of the decisions determined by a tribunal.

        The issues to be decided are whether the decision to adopt the
proposal for amendments to the building plan for the area in which the
applicant's property was situated was decisive for a "civil right" of
the applicant and, if so, whether a dispute arose between the
applicant and the Swedish authorities in relation to the adoption of
these amendments.  In the affirmative, it would have to be determined
whether the applicant had at his disposal a procedure satisfying the
requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) in regard to that dispute.

        The Commission has made a preliminary examination of these
issues in the light of the parties' submissions.  It considers that
these issues raise questions of fact and law which are of such an
important and complex nature that their determination requires an
examination of the merits.  This complaint must therefore be declared
admissible, no other ground for declaring it inadmissible having been
established.

3.      The applicant has also complained of a violation of Article 13
(Art. 13) of the Convention, which guarantees the right to an
effective remedy to everyone who alleges a violation of his rights and
freedoms as set forth in the Convention or its Protocols.

        The Commission considers that this complaint is closely
related to that under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention and it should
therefore also be declared admissible.

        For these reasons, the Commission

        DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the complaint that the decision
        to change the building plan was a violation of Article 1
        of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention.


        DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits, the
        remainder of the application.


        Secretary to the Commission     President of the Commission




              (H.C. KRUGER)                   (C. A. NØRGAARD)