II Council of Europe
| Published date | 01 June 1991 |
| DOI | 10.1177/016934419100900205 |
| Date | 01 June 1991 |
| Subject Matter | Part B: Human Rights News |
NQHR
2/1991
F
Manual
on
Human
Rights Reporting
The UN Centre for Human Rights in Geneva published together with the
UN Institute for Training and Research in New York (UNITAR) a
comprehensive Manual on Human Rights Reporting under the 6 most
important human rights instruments of the United Nations (UN Sales No.
E. 911I1.K. Man/6). After a general introduction to the internationalsystem
of human rights (Theo van Boven) and some articles on general aspects of
human rights reporting, outstanding members of the 6 treaty monitoring
bodies (Philip Alston, Fausto Pocar, Luis Valencia Rodriguez, Samba Cor
Konate, Zagorka IIic and Joseph Voyame) describe the requirements of
State reports and their examination under the 2 Covenants, CERD,
CEDAW, CAT and the Apartheid Convention.
II
COUNCIL
OF EUROPE·
A The
European
Court of
Human
Rights
In the course of February 1991 - May 1991 the Court delivered the
followingjudgments:
- 18 February 1991,
Fredin
(Sweden), A.192. In 1963, the applicants'
parents had been granted, subject to certain conditions, a permit to
exploit a gravel pit on a parcel of land. The applicants became the sale
owners of the land in 1977 and started to exploit the gravel in 1980, the
permit being transferred to them in 1983. Acting under the Nature
Conservation Act 1964,as amended in 1973, the County Administrative
Board, which had previously given the applicants certain warnings on
the subject, ordered in 1984 that the exploitation should cease as soon
as possible; it decided,
inter
alia, that the permit should be valid until
the end of 1987, by which time all work on the gravel pit was to be
terminated and the area in question was to be restored, and that the
security deposited by the applicants to cover restoration costs be
increased. In 1985 the Government dismissed an appeal by the
applicants, but extended the validity of the permit to 1 June
1988.
This
• Leo Zwaak
166
Human Rights News
time-limit was later extended to 1 December 1988, on which date the
extraction of gravel ceased.
The
applicants alleged that the withdrawal
of the permit constituted a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 (right
to peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions). They also contended that
they had
been
victims of discrimination, contrary to Article 14 in
conjunctionwith the said Article 1, in that their case had been treated
differently from other cases concerning gravel pits in the region. Finally,
they complained that, contrary to Article 6(1), they had no possibilityof
having the decision revoking the permit and increasing the amount of
security examined by a court. The Court noted that there had been no
formal expropriation and that the effects of the revocation were not
sufficiently serious to make it a de facto expropriation. The land was not
left without any meaningful use, the applicants were still owners of the
gravel resources. Their possibilities of continuing exploitation had
already
been
made uncertain by changes in the law in 1973. Thus, the
measure amounted to a control of use of property and the second
paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol 1 was applicable. The effects of the
revocation had to be assessed in the light not only of the substantial
losses suffered by the applicants as compared with the potential of the
pit
if
developed in accordance with the 1963 permit, but also of the
restrictions which had lawfully
been
imposed on the use of the land.
When they initiated investments and exploitation in 1980, the applicants
could
not
have any legitimate expectations of being able to continue
working the pit for long. They risked losingtheir permit after 1983 and
they had
not
received any assurances to the contrary from the authori-
ties. In the light of these considerations and having regard to the
closing-down period which was granted (almost four years), the Court
concluded that the revocation decision was not disproportionate to the
legitimate aim pursued. No violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 was
established. Like the Commission, the Court concludedthat no issue of
discrimination arose. The applicants' right to develop their property
within the applicable laws and regulations was a "civil right".
The
"genuine and serious" dispute which clearly existed over the lawfulness
of the impugned decisions could be determinated only by the Govern-
ment as the final instance. The applicants accordingly did not enjoy the
right of access to the courts provided for by Article 6(1). Finally, the
Court decided that the Swedish Government had to pay under Article
167
To continue reading
Request your trial