AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 12032/86
                      by Carsten JACOBSEN
                      against Sweden

        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 13 March 1989, the following members being present:

              MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
                  S. TRECHSEL
                  F. ERMACORA
                  G. SPERDUTI
                  E. BUSUTTIL
                  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.  L. LOUCAIDES

             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 19 January 1986
by Carsten Jacobsen against Sweden and registered on 10 March 1986
under file No. 12032/86;

        Having regard to

        -  the Commission's decision of 2 May 1988 to communicate
           the application to the Government for written observations
           on the admissibility and merits;

        -  the Government's observations of 17 August 1988;

        -  the applicant's observations of 16 October 1988;

        -  the Government's further observations of 12 December 1988;

        -  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 submitted by the parties, may be
summarised as follows.

        The applicant is a Swedish citizen born in 1920 and resident
at Falkenberg.  He is retired.

        Since 1963 he owns, together with his wife, a property of
12,820 m2 called Skrea 5:15.  The property was created in 1935 to be
used for dwelling purposes.  In 1969 to 1970 the applicant erected a
one-family house on the property.

        No detailed plan had been established for the area in which
the property is situated and, consequently, regulations for
non-planned areas (utomplansbestämmelser) were applicable.

        Since 1 August 1972 there has been, with some short
interruptions, a prohibition against new construction within the area
to which the applicant's property belongs.  The prohibition was issued
under Section 109 of the 1947 Building Act (byggnadslagen) pending the
adoption of a building plan.

        On 15 January 1985 the County Administrative Board
(länsstyrelsen) of the County of Halland decided to prolong the
building prohibition until a proposal for a building plan or an
amendment of a building plan had been adopted.   However, in no case
was the prohibition valid longer than up to and including 31 December
1986.  The prohibition on construction was issued under Section 109 of
the Building Act.  The reasons for the building prohibition, as
submitted by the Building Committee of Falkenberg, were inter alia the
following: In the area there existed building plans which permitted
buildings exceeding 80 m2.  The intention was to change all the
building plans to the effect that the regulations were in conformity
with the guidelines issued by the Building Committee on 15 March 1984.
Moreover, in certain areas planning work was going on.

        The applicant appealed against the decision of the County
Administrative Board to the Government which, after having obtained
the opinion of the Building Committee and further written observations
from the applicant, decided on 17 October 1985 to reject the appeal
considering that the planning situation in the area justified a
prolongation of the building prohibition.

        In his letters to the Government the applicant inter alia
complained that the Building Committee had grossly misused the
building prohibition and prevented him and his wife from peaceful
enjoyment of their property.  He also submitted that the Committee
had, in its efforts to interfere with the applicant's private
property, given false information to superior authorities and courts.

COMPLAINTS

1.      The applicant alleges a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
to the Convention in that since 1972 a building prohibition has been in
force which involves a restriction on his property right.  He has for a
long time been prevented from the peaceful enjoyment of his
possessions.

2.      The applicant also alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of
the Convention.  He submits that his property right is a civil right
and that the building prohibition involves financial losses for him.
There has been a serious dispute which has lasted for more than
fourteen years and this dispute cannot be examined by an impartial
and independent tribunal.

3.      The applicant also alleges a violation of Article 13 of the
Convention.  He submits that there is no effective remedy in respect
of the restriction of his civil rights.

4.      The applicant further alleges a violation of Article 17 of the
Convention, since the aim of the building prohibition is to nullify the
applicant's civil right.

5.      Finally, the applicant alleges a violation of Article 18 of
the Convention, in that the authorities have not indicated any justified
reason for the building prohibition.


PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

        The application was introduced on 19 January 1986 and
registered on 10 March 1986.

        On 2 May 1988 the Commission decided to communicate the
application to the respondent Government and to invite them to submit
written observations on the admissibility and merits of the
application.

        The Government's observations were received by letter dated
17 August 1988 and the applicant's observations in reply were dated
16 October 1988.  The Government submitted further observations by
letter of 12 December 1988.

        On 16 December 1988 the applicant was granted legal aid.


THE LAW

1.      The applicant complains that there has been a building
prohibition on his property since 1972 which has restricted his right
to property in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the
Convention.  This complaint is directed against the decision of the
Government of 17 October 1985, whereby they rejected his appeal
against the decision of the County Administrative Board of
15 January 1985 to prolong the building prohibition.

        The applicant further alleges that there has been a violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention since he could not have the
dispute over the building prohibition examined by an independent and
impartial tribunal.

        The applicant also invokes Articles 13, 17 and 18 (Art. 13, 17, 18°) of
the Convention.

2.      The Government submit that the complaint under Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) is manifestly ill-founded.  They contend that the
building prohibition constitutes a control of the use of property and
is justified under the second paragraph of this Article.

        As regards Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention the
Government submit that the complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the
Convention, either because no "civil right" was at issue or because there was
no serious dispute over any such right.  In the alternative they submit that
this complaint is manifestly ill-founded.

        If the Commission were to consider that the decision of
17 October 1985 concerned a serious dispute over the applicant's civil
rights, the Government admit that no procedure satisfying the conditions of
Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention was available to the applicant.

        The Government contend that the applicant's remaining
complaints are manifestly ill-founded.

3.      Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention 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."

        Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) first sentence of the Convention 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."

4.      The Commission has first examined whether the applicant's
complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) is manifestly ill-founded
and whether the complaint under Article 6 (Art. 6) is incompatible ratione
materiae with the Convention or manifestly ill-founded, as submitted
by the Government.

        The first issue to be examined under Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 (P1-1) is whether in the circumstances of the case the building
prohibition constitutes an interference with the applicant's right
under this Article to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.  If this
were so, it would then have to be examined whether the interference is
justified under the terms of the Article.

        As regards Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention the issues to be
decided are whether the decision to prolong the building prohibition
on the applicant's property was decisive for a "civil right" of the
applicant and, if so, whether a genuine and serious dispute arose
between the applicant and the Swedish authorities in relation to the
decision to prolong the building prohibition.  In the affirmative, it
would then 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 a
complex nature that their determination requires an examination of the
merits.  The application cannot therefore be declared inadmissible as
being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention, and no other ground for declaring it inadmissible
has been established.



        For these reasons, the Commission

        DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE,
        without prejudging the merits of the case.



Secretary to the Commission               President of the Commission




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