Euroopa Inimõiguste Kohus
23.09.1982

Facts

Due to the plans of building new roads and viaducts both applicants’, Mr. Sporrong’s and Ms. Lӧnnroth’s, properties in Stockholm were included in the list of properties planned to be expropriated. Expropriation permits for the applicants’ properties were in force for 23 and 8 years respectively and were subsequently revoked because of the change of town-planning policy. The properties had not been demolished. During the time the permits were in force, the applicants were not allowed to do reconstruction works in their properties unless they acquired a special permit. The applicants could not apply to court to challenge the extension of expropriation permits or have them revoked.

Complaint

The applicants complained that their complaints concerning the expropriation permits affecting their properties were not, and could not have been, heard by the Swedish courts thus violating their right to fair trial.

Court's ruling

The applicants complained that their complaints concerning the expropriation permits affecting their properties were not, and could not have been, heard by the Swedish courts thus violating their right to fair trial. 

Court’s rulingIn the Court’s view the applicants’ right of property was "civil right" therefore Article 6(1) of the Convention was applicable. The Court emphasized that the right to fair trial applies to anyone who considers that an interference with the exercise of one of his civil rights is unlawful and complains that he has not had the possibility of submitting that claim to a tribunal. Given that the applicants regarded expropriation permits which affected their right of property unlawful they were entitled to have this issue of domestic law