Application No. 12091/86
against Sweden

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

                MM.  C.A. NØRGAARD, President
                     J.A. FROWEIN
                     F. ERMACORA
                     G. SPERDUTI
                     E. BUSUTTIL
                     G. JÖRUNDSSON
                     A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
                     A. WEITZEL
                     J.C. SOYER
                     H.G. SCHERMERS
                     H. DANELIUS
                     G. BATLINER
                     H. VANDENBERGHE
                M.   F. MARTINEZ
                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 31 October
1985 by Anders ANDERSSON against Sweden and registered on 10 April 1986
under file No. 12091/86;

        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

- ii -


        Having regard to the observations submitted by the Government
on 14 October 1987 and 28 April 1988 and the applicant's observations
of 17 February 1988 and 13 January 1989 as well as the submissions of
the parties at the hearing held on 9 March 1989;

        Having deliberated;

        Decides as follows:


        The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be
summarised as follows.

        The applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1947 and resident
at Loftahammar.  He is a fisherman by profession.  Before the Commission
the applicant is represented by Mr.  Jan Axelsson, a lawyer practising
in Stockholm.

        The applicant owns a property which includes fishing waters in
the Baltic Sea.

        On 1 May 1985 new legislation entered into force which made
fishing with hand-held tackle (handredskapsfiske) licence-free for
everybody.  Thereby the applicant's exclusive right to such fishing in
his waters has been transformed so that everybody is now entitled to
fish with hand-held tackle in these waters.  The 1985 legislation
involved in essence an amendment of the Fishing Rights Act (lagen om
rätt till fiske) and a new Act on Compensation for Interferences with
Private Fishing Rights (lagen om ersättning för intrång i enskild
fiskerätt; hereinafter referred to as "the Compensation Act").

        The amendment of the Fishing Rights Act consisted essentially
of the introduction of a Section 20 a which reads as follows :


        "Vid kusten av Östhammars kommun i Uppsala län, Stockholms
        län, Södermanlands län, Östergötlands län, Kalmar län,
        Gotlands län och Blekinge län samt i Vänern, Vättern,
        Mälaren, Hjälmaren och Storsjön i Jämtland får svenska
        medborgare, utöver vad som följer av 7-11 och 14-20 §§, fiska
        i enskilt vatten med metspö, kastspö, pilk och liknande
        handredskap som är utrustat med lina och krok.  Redskapet får
        dock inte ha mer än tio krokar.  Ej heller får fiskemetoden
        som sådan kräva användning av båt.

        (English translation)

        "Along the coast of the municipality of Östhammar of the
        county of Uppsala, the county of Stockholm, the county of
        Östergötland, the county of Kalmar, the county of Gotland,
        the county of Blekinge and in the lakes of Vänern, Vättern,
        Mälaren, Hjälmaren and Storsjön of Jämtland, Swedish citizens
        may, subject to the provisions of Sections 7-11 and 14-20,
        fish in private waters with rod, casting rod, jig and similar
        hand-held tackle equipped with line and hook.  The tackle may
        however not include more than ten hooks.  The fishing method
        may also not require the use of a boat."

        Section 1 para. 1 of the Compensation Act provides as follows:


        "Medför bestämmelserna om handredskapsfiske enligt 20 a §
        lagen (1950:596) om rätt till fiske ett inkomstbortfall för
        den som är innehavare av enskild fiskerätt, har han enligt
        denna lag rätt till ersättning av staten för

        (English translation)

        "If the provisions on fishing with hand-held tackle under
        Section 20 a of the Fishing Rights Act involve a loss of
        income for the proprietor of a private fishing right he is
        entitled under this Act to compensation from the State for
        the loss of income."

        A transitional provision to the Compensation Act provides
that income received as a result of measures taken after 1 March 1984
shall not be the basis for the calculation of compensation under the

        In the Government Bill 1984/85:107 (pp. 42-43), the Minister of
Agriculture made inter alia the following statements:

        The purpose of making fishing with hand-held tackle free was to
meet the public's interest in leisure activities.  In most cases no
damage would be done to the fishing rights owner if fishing with
hand-held tackle was made free.  However, in some special cases there
ought to be a possibility for the fishing rights owner to receive
compensation.  For a right to compensation it ought to be required that
the interference was somewhat substantial.  Everyone must be prepared
to accept a certain interference in the public interest without
compensation.  Since free fishing with hand-held tackle would not
affect the use of the water for other purposes than fishing the
compensation rule could be restricted to cover interferences which
resulted in ongoing use of fishing in private waters being rendered
considerably more difficult.  Compensation should not be paid for other
interferences than in ongoing use of water for fishing.  If the waters
had not previously been used for fishing there could be no
compensation.  Expectation values should thus not be compensated.  The
compensation should be assessed on the basis of actual loss of income
suffered by the individual fishing rights owner as a result of the
free fishing with hand-held tackle.  For a right to compensation it
ought to be required that the damage did not appear to be
insignificant seen in absolute figures.

        Before the Government's proposal was submitted to Parliament,
it was examined by the Law Council (lagrådet), composed of two judges
of the Supreme Court (högsta domstolen) and one judge of the Supreme
Administrative Court (regeringsrätten).  The Law Council, although
proposing a certain increase in the right to compensation, found that
the proposed legislation did not violate the Swedish Constitution.

        When the proposed legislation was examined in Parliament the
Standing Committee on Agriculture (jordbruksutskottet) made the
following statement (JoU 1984/85:20, page 15):

"The Committee supports the statement made by the Minister of
Agriculture that this is not a question of such transfer of
property which is covered by the provision in Chapter 2
Section 18 of the Instrument of Government on expropriation.
However, the Committee also shares the view of the Minister of
Agriculture that it is important that the question of

compensation is given a satisfactory solution with regard to
the protection of the individual at which the said
constitutional provision is aiming.  For that reason those
private fishing rights owners who suffer financial losses
as a result of the free fishing with hand-held tackle, should
be entitled to compensation for such losses in accordance with
grounds laid down in the law.  It is reasonable that this right
to compensation covers every personal financial loss which the
fishing rights owners may suffer."

        Before coming to that conclusion and when summarising the
Minister's reasoning in the Government Bill, the Standing Committee
stated (at p. 13) that compensation should be paid if it could be
established in some case that the fishing rights owner's own catches
have been reduced as a direct consequence of the free fishing with
hand-held tackle and that, as a result, he has had less income.

        Claims for compensation should be submitted to the National
Board of Fisheries (fiskeristyrelsen) before the end of 1989.  The
National Board of Fisheries decides on issues of compensation.  No
appeal lies against this decision.  However, a property owner who is
not satisfied with a decision of the National Board of Fisheries can
institute proceedings before the Real Estate Court

        The background and reasons for the 1985 legislation are
described as follows by the Government (with reference to the
Government Bill 1984/85:107):

        The reform constitutes a part of the public recreation policy.
From the social aspect it is important for people to have
opportunities for relaxation and activities in their leisure time.
This need increases as leisure time increases and daily work requires
less physical effort.  There are numerous obstacles limiting
opportunities for utilizing leisure time.  Many leisure activities
require expensive equipment.  One's own holiday cottage, a craft or
caravan and access to a car are often required to get to recreation
areas.  People living in large towns often live far from unexploited
countryside and the recreation facilities offered thereby.
Furthermore, many people who have moved to the towns previously had a
natural and spontaneous contact with unspoiled nature which is now
lost.  Recreational fishing means a great deal to these people.  All
three of the big-city areas in Sweden are located close to the sea
coast.  Two of them also offer suitable lakes in the immediate vicinity
of residential areas.  Distance therefore does not have to be a problem
for those who wish to go fishing in their leisure time.  However,
recreational fishing requires access to suitable fishing waters in the
big-city areas.  In the Gothenburg and Malmö areas it was possible for
everyone to fish on the coast, but in the Stockholm area this was
prevented by the fishery legislation which meant that fishing near the
beaches and in most of the archipelago area was an exclusive right of
the owner of the fishing rights.

        Furthermore, an important task for society is to make a wide
range of leisure activities available to all.  This is particularly
important since the opportunity of leisure activities and exercise is
of great significance to health, adjustment and well-being in society.
Recreational fishing offers unique opportunities for contact with
nature, exercise and relaxation and it is open to anyone.  It activates
people from all groups of society.  The social bias often evident in

other leisure activities does not exist in recreational fishing.  It is
also an important supplement to other leisure activities such as
boating, hiking, holiday trips and camping.  Recreational fishing can
also provide an added source of livelihood, enabling settling in
sparsely populated areas where other sources of livelihood are
limited.  An important task for society is to contribute to offering
the public a rich and varied range of leisure opportunities.
Experience shows that active recreational fishing plays an important
part in the social recreation policy.

        In the Bill submitted to Parliament, in which the reform was
proposed, the Minister of Agriculture stated the following:

"It is unusually difficult to obtain any clear picture of the
current legislation on fishing rights.  This is evident from
the summary of the system of regulations given in the
memorandum.  Regulations which at the time they were issued may
have seemed reasonable and fair, now appear difficult to
understand, complicated and sometimes illogical.  One of the
most striking examples of this is that on certain stretches of
the coast the public may fish freely with nets but may not use
hand-held tackle.  The provisions of the Fishing Act are
supplemented by provisions concerning conservation and
operation of fishing issued by the Government in the Ordinance
on Fishery and other provisions notified by the National Board
of Fisheries or by the County Administrative Boards.  This
accumulation of regulations is extremely extensive and
contains such a multitude of detail that it is difficult for
an individual to acquire adequate information as to where,
when and how he may fish.  The fact that the regulations are
often considered complicated or are misunderstood entails an
apparent risk of even regulations which are well-motivated
from the conservation aspect being disregarded.

Even today the owners of fishing rights do not make full claim
to their rights, but allow the public to fish with hand-held
tackle and even with nets along large parts of the coastal
stretches now under discussion.

In the light of this I look upon the proposal to increase the
public's opportunities to fish freely with hand-held tackle
as a natural and essential step towards simplification.  If it
is implemented, this will allow fishing with hand-held tackle
in both public and private waters along all coasts and in the
large lakes.  The only limitation remaining will be the
exclusion of salmon fishing along the coast of Norrland (from
Östhammar municipality to the Finnish border).  As long as only
hand-held tackle are used, the reform will relieve both the
public and the authorities of keeping track of where the
boundary lies between public and private waters.  Besides the
other reasons favouring the reform, I also consider this
simplification to have a considerable intrinsic value.

As appears from what I have already submitted, Parliament on
two previous occasions, by requesting a proposal from the
Government, has already reached a decision in principle to
allow fishing with hand-held tackle to be free.  The task of
the Government now, therefore, is to draw up the legislative

proposals required to implement the reform.  Replacing this
reform by forming fishery conservation areas within all
private waters in the areas under discussion is, for several
reasons, not a realistic alternative.  Fishery conservation
areas cannot simply replace free fishing with hand-held
tackle.  The formation of such conservation areas aims
primarily at improving fishery conservation and not at giving
the public free access to fishing.  Furthermore, in my opinion,
fishery conservation areas formed compulsorily, as they often
would be, would constitute a far greater interference with the
individual's rights than the free fishing with hand-held
tackle.  Voluntary formation of fishery conservation areas
which can give the public access to fishing-grounds to the
same extent as free fishing with hand-held tackle cannot be
expected within a reasonable time.

However, the reform should not entail any new obstacles to the
formation of fishery conservation areas."

        The Standing Committee on Agriculture made the following
statement (JoU 1984/85:26 p. 10):

        "The Government's proposal... means that Parliament's
        wish, expressed two years ago, is now satisfied.  An important
        recreational political reform is implemented since fishing
        with hand-held tackle, in the future, will be free along all
        coasts of Sweden and in the large lakes...  It is a strong
        public interest to make possible, in this way, an increased
        offer of leisure activities to the population in for instance
        the metropolitan areas...  The Committee also finds it
        valuable that the fishing legislation is considerably
        simplified by the proposal."

        Chapter 2 Section 18 of the Instrument of Government
(regeringsformen) reads:


        "Varje medborgare vilkens egendom tages i anspråk genom
        expropriation eller annat sådant förfogande skall vara
        tillförsäkrad ersättning för förlusten enligt grunder som
        bestämmes i lag."

        (English translation)

        "Every citizen whose property is taken through expropriation
        or other similar use shall be entitled to compensation for the
        loss according to rules laid down by law."

        Chapter 11 Section 14 of the Instrument of Government reads:


        "Finner domstol eller annat offentligt organ att en föreskrift
        står i strid med bestämmelse i grundlag eller annan överordnad
        författning eller att stadgad ordning i något väsentligt
        hänseende har åsidosatts vid dess tillkomst, får föreskriften
        icke tillämpas.  Har riksdagen eller regeringen beslutat
        föreskriften, skall tillämpning dock underlåtas endast om
        felet är uppenbart."

        (English translation)

        "If a court or other public authority finds that a regulation
        is in conflict with a provision in the Constitution or other
        superior legislation or that the prescribed procedure in some
        significant respect has not been observed when it was adopted,
        the regulation may not be applied.  However, if Parliament or
        the Government have issued the regulation, it shall be
        applied unless the irregularity is manifest."

        As regards the financial losses suffered by the applicant
under the 1985 fishing reform, the applicant submits that, since the
introduction of that reform, his catches of pike have fallen from 2360
kg in 1985 to 1676 kg in 1988.  His catches of perch have fallen from
1372 kg to 351 kg over the same period.  The average price of pike can
be estimated at approximately 15 SEK per kg and that of perch at
approximately 7 SEK per kg.

        During the 15 years period preceding the 1985 reform, the
applicant's catches of pike and perch were lower than in 1985, pike
varying between approximately 1500 and 750 kg with an exceptional low
of 600 and perch between approximately 800 and 300 kg.

        The increase in 1985 was due to the fact that, in order to
compensate for the expected diminishing of the stock of pike and perch
due to the 1985 fishing reform, the applicant doubled the fishing nets
used from 540 metres to 1080 metres at a cost of 2.968 SEK (VAT not
included).  He also bought 14 bag-nets for catching eel at a cost of
9.100 SEK. As a consequence, he had to spend more than twice the time
fishing as before the reform.  Nevertheless, he has barely managed to
keep his net income from fishing.  If inflation is taken into account
it has fallen.  His net taxable income from fishing 1983 - 1987 was
16.476, 21.892, 22.546, 20.717 and 21.263 SEK respectively.

        The season for fishing-nets is about four weeks in summer
during spawning, when the bulk of pike and perch is caught.  Before
1985, the applicant used to spend about 100 hours fishing during this
period, now he has to spend about 200 hours.  His work during the
bag-net season (roughly late May - early September) has increased from
approximately 25 to 60 hours.

        In addition, as a consequence of the 1985 reform, people
using hand-held tackle cause considerable damage to the applicant's
fishing gear.  The cost for replacing damaged equipment amounts to
about 500 SEK yearly.  He has to spend approximately 10 hours each year
to mend damaged equipment.  Furthermore, he has to check his bag-nets
more frequently making him spend another 15 hours yearly.

        In the waters north-east of the island of Långö, where the
applicant used to get considerable catches of eel, fishing by the
public has become so intense that it is now impossible to fish with
bag-nets since they will be damaged all the time.  The loss can be
estimated at 75 kg eel yearly worth 3.000 SEK.

        It is of course difficult to fix the price of the applicant's
work but a minimum would be the hourly wage of an agricultural worker
including social charges.  That amounts to 85 SEK. His hourly gross
income as a fisherman would normally be considerably higher.

        To sum up, the applicant's loss so far can be calculated
to amount to 17.100 SEK.  To this should be added cost of new
equipment amounting to 12.068 SEK.


1.      The applicant alleges a violation of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 to the Convention.  He has been deprived of his exclusive right
to fish in his waters.  It is not a question of controlling the use of
his property.  There is no public interest which justifies the
interference.  In any event there is no reasonable relationship
between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised.  In
addition, compensation is refused to him in an arbitrary and
discriminatory manner.

2.      The applicant also alleges a violation of Article 14 of the
Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as a result
of the discriminatory rules on compensation.

3.      The applicant alleges a breach of Article 6 of the Convention,
in that he has not had the possibility of submitting his claims in
relation to the unlawful interference with his civil rights to a
tribunal meeting the requirements of the Convention.  He is not
allowed to dispute the legality of the interference with his property
right.  Nor is he allowed to dispute the legality of the principle
according to which compensation for losses is refused in his case.

4.      The applicant finally alleges a violation of Article 13 of the
Convention, in that there is no appeal to a Swedish authority which
constitutes an effective remedy for the above alleged violations of
the applicant's rights under the Convention.


        The application was introduced on 31 October 1985 and
registered on 10 April 1986.

        On 4 May 1987 the Commission decided to invite the respondent
Government to present written observations on the admissibility and
merits of the application.

        The Government's observations were received by letter dated
14 October 1987 and the applicant's observations in reply were dated
17 February 1988.

        The Government submitted further observations in reply on
28 April 1988.

        On 13 May 1988 the Commission, with reference to Rule 2 (b) of
the Addendum to its Rules of Procedure, refused the applicant's
request for legal aid.  On 13 January 1989 the applicant submitted an
estimate of the financial losses he had suffered as a result of the
1985 reform.

        On 10 October 1988 the Commission decided to invite the
parties to a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the

        The hearing was held on 9 March 1989.  It was a joint hearing
involving also Applications Nos. 11763/85, 11764/85, 11765/85,
11766/85, 11767/85 and 11830/85.  At the hearing the parties were
represented as follows:

The Government

Mr.  Hans CORELL               Ambassador, Under-Secretary for
                              Legal and Consular Affairs, Ministry
                              for Foreign Affairs, Agent
Mr.  Ulf ANDERSSON             Assistant Under-Secretary, Ministry
                              for the Environment and Energy, Adviser
Mr.  Carl Henrik EHRENKRONA    Legal Adviser, Ministry for Foreign
                              Affairs, Adviser
Mr.  Pär BOQVIST               Legal Adviser, Ministry for Foreign
                              Affairs, Adviser

The Applicants

Mr.  Michaël HERNMARCK (Applications Nos. 11763 and 11764/85), Lawyer
Mr.  Bo NILSSON (Applications Nos. 11765 - 11767/85), Chief Legal Adviser
Mr.  Lars-Åke LINDBERG (assisting Mr.  Bo Nilsson), Legal Adviser
Mr.  Bertil GRENNBERG (Application No. 11830/85), Patent Attorney
Mr.  Jan AXELSSON (Application No. 12091/86), Lawyer


1.      The applicant complains that the new legislation which was
introduced on 1 May 1985 and gave everybody a right to licence-free
fishing with hand-held tackle in the applicant's fishing waters
involved a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) 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 applicant also alleges a violation of Article 14 (Art. 14)
of the Convention which prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of
the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention.

        The Government submit that the application should be rejected
for failure to exhaust domestic remedies or, alternatively, as being
manifestly ill-founded.

2.      As to the condition of exhaustion of domestic remedies in
Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the Government submit that the
applicant has failed to apply to the National Board of Fisheries for
compensation under the Compensation Act.  If such an application were
unsuccessful the applicant could bring an action against the State
before the Real Estate Court.  In such proceedings he could argue that
the 1985 legislation is contrary to Chapter 2 Section 18 of the
Instrument of Government and, if such an argument were accepted, the
Court could refuse to apply the legislation in application of Chapter
11 Section 14 of the Instrument of Government.

        The applicant replies that, under the Compensation Act, the
right to compensation is so restricted that it does not cover the
applicant's claim.  He submits that since he has had to compensate the
fall of catches by investing in equipments and working more hours,
there is no direct loss of income and consequently no right to
compensation under the Compensation Act.  Furthermore, the courts can
only refuse to apply the legislation if it is proven that the law is
"manifestly" contrary to the Instrument of Government, which cannot
be proved since the Act has been examined by the Law Council and not been
declared unconstitutional.

        Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention provides that the
Commission may only deal with a matter "after all domestic remedies
have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of
international law, and within a period of six months from the date on
which the final decision was taken".  It is established case-law that
"the final decision" refers only to domestic remedies which can be
considered to be "effective and sufficient" for the purpose of
rectifying the subject-matter of the complaint (see, inter alia, No.
9599/81, Dec. 11.3.85, D.R. 42 p. 33).  Where there is doubt as to the
effectiveness of a given remedy, it must nevertheless be tried before
an applicant can be said to have fulfilled the condition of exhaustion
of domestic remedies.  In a recent case against Sweden (No. 12810/87,
Dec. 18.1.89, not yet published) the Commission found that a
compensation claim based on Chapter 2 Section 18 of the Instrument of
Government was not an "effective remedy" in the circumstances of that

        The Commission considers it clear that some of the
applicant's claims are such that he could not secure compensation for
them under the Compensation Act.  The same is however not true for the
claims relating to the reduction of catches in fish and the claim that
the applicant has been obliged to give up certain fishing.  In these
respects, the Commission notes that the Compensation Act entitles the
applicant to compensation for loss of income resulting from the
public's fishing with hand-held tackle under the new law.  It further
notes that there is no case-law supporting the argument that such
claims cannot be considered as "loss of income" within the meaning of
the Compensation Act.  Moreover, it is still open to the applicant to
introduce an action for compensation on that basis.  The Commission
cannot ascertain, in the preparatory works, any conclusive evidence
that compensation for such claims is excluded.

        The Commission therefore finds that the applicant has not
satisfied the condition of exhaustion of domestic remedies in this
respect.  Although some of the applicant's claims cannot give rise to
compensation under the Compensation Act it is not possible, in the
Commission's view, to sever these claims from the other claims when
examining the case under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).  This is
so since the question of compensation is an element in the examination
of the justification of any interference with the rights under Article
1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

        Consequently, this part of the application is inadmissible
under Article 27 para. 3 (27-3 + 26) in conjunction with Article 26 of
the Convention.

3.      The applicant further alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 1,
(Art. 6-1) first sentence of the Convention which provides:

        "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 applicant complains that the 1985 Act, without further
implementing measures, interfered with his private property right and hence
his "civil rights" and that no court can determine whether he should
keep his fishing rights around the island for himself.

        The Government argue that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) does
not grant a right of access to court in order to challenge a law.  The
Commission recalls that in the James and Others judgment (Eur.  Court
H.R., judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, p. 46, para. 81),
the Court stated:

        "Confirmation of this analysis is to be found in the fact
        that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) does not require that
        there be a national court with competence to invalidate
        or override national law.

        In the present case, the immediate consequence of the British
        legislation in issue is that the landlord cannot challenge
        the tenant's entitlement to acquire the property compulsorily
        in so far as the acquisition is in conformity with the

        The Commission considers that the "right" to exclusive fishing
with hand-held tackle, which the applicant had prior to the law, was
taken away from him by the new law adopted by Parliament without any
further implementing measures.  A Swedish court could only examine a
claim of a breach of the Constitution if it had competence to
invalidate or set aside a law adopted by Parliament.  However, it
follows from what has been said above that Article 6 para.1 (Art. 6-1)
does not guarantee access to court for such a claim.

        The Commission further considers that, insofar as the
applicant can be said to claim loss of income as a result of the
fishing reform, he has access to court.

        Accordingly, the application is, in this respect, manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

4.      The applicant also alleges a violation of Article 13 (Art. 13)
of the Convention which provides:

"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in
this Convention are violated shall have an effective
remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that
the violation has been committed by persons acting in an
official capacity."

        Article 13 (Art. 13) does not guarantee a remedy whereby a Contracting
State's laws as such can be challenged before a national authority on
the ground of being contrary to the Convention or to corresponding
domestic legal norms (James and Others judgment, loc. cit., p. 47,
para. 85).

        The applicant's allegations of violations of the rights of the
Convention are directed at the effects of the Fishing Rights Act and
the Compensation Act.

        It follows from what has been said above that Article 13
(Art. 13) does not entitle the applicant to any remedy for such allegations.

        Accordingly, there is no appearance of a violation of
Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention.

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

        For these reasons, the Commission


Secretary to the Commission               President of the Commission

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