THIRD SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 59122/08
by Annika JACOBSON
against Sweden
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 12 January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 November 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Annika Jacobson, is a Swedish national who lives in Hammenhög. She is represented before the Court by Mr P. Sjödin, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner of the property Sandby 66:3 in the municipality of Simrishamn. Covering about 38 hectares, it is leased to a forestry company, P7G Österlens Natur & Trä AB (hereafter “the company”).
By a decision of 5 May 2003 the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen) in Skåne decided to create a nature reserve, Mälarhusen, mainly consisting of the applicant’s property. The purposes were the development of biological diversity on the land and the preservation of an area of importance to public outdoor life. The Board imposed extensive restrictions on the use of the property, including building and logging bans. The Board did not hold an oral hearing.
The applicant and the company appealed to the Government which, on 23 October 2003, upheld the County Administrative Board’s decision, without holding a hearing.
The applicant and the company then requested a review of the Government’s decision by the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) under the Act on Judicial Review of Certain Administrative Decisions (, 1988:205; hereafter “the 1988 Act”).
The Supreme Administrative Court held an oral hearing, at which it heard two experts suggested by the complainants. The two experts stated that the land was not of such importance that it merited the creation of a nature reserve. However, by a judgment of 2 June 2008 the court upheld the Government’s decision, finding that the decision to establish a nature reserve was in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Code (Miljöbalken), that there had not been any procedural irregularities that could have had a bearing on the decision and that there were no other reason to find that the decision contravened the law.
COMPLAINTS
1.  The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that she did not have her case examined by an impartial court, before which she could have an oral hearing and present evidence.
2.  She also claims that the decision to create the nature reserve violated her property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
1.  The applicant complains of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ...”
The Court notes that the applicant’s case was examined on the merits by the Supreme Administrative Court on 2 June 2008. That court undoubtedly constitutes a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. Furthermore, according to established case-law, the judicial review under the 1988 Act meets the requirements of a determination by a tribunal (see, for example, Bengtsson v. Sweden, no. 18660/91, Commission decision of 7 December 1994, Decisions and Reports 79, p. 11, as well as, implicitly, Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 19 February 1998, §§ 46-49, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, and Hellborg v. Sweden, no. 47473/99, § 56, 28 February 2006).
The Supreme Administrative Court held an oral hearing and thus gave the applicant an opportunity to plead her case and present evidence. In fact, the court took evidence from two expert witnesses proposed by the applicant. Moreover, there is no indication that the court failed to meet the requirements of impartiality.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
 2.  The applicant further complains that the decision to turn her property into a nature reserve violated her rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. She states that she was deprived of practically all rights as owner and that the property, as a consequence of the decision and the restrictions imposed thereby, no longer has any economic value. Article 1 of Protocol No. 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 Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
	Stanley Naismith	Josep Casadevall
	Deputy Registrar	President