European Court of Human Rights

Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)78¹

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Allard against Sweden

(Application No. 35179/97, judgment of 24/06/2003, final on 24/09/2003)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the demolition of a house built by the applicant on jointly owned property without the consent of the other joint owners (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:

- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- of general measures preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)78

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of

Allard against Sweden

Introductory case summary

The case concerns the demolition, in June 1996, of a house built by the applicant on jointly owned property without the necessary consent of the other joint owners. The European Court found that the fact of being ordered to be removed from her house and later have it demolished had imposed on the applicant an individual and excessive burden (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The European Court noted in particular that the appellate court had decided on the applicant’s appeal against the decision rejecting her request for postponement of the enforcement of the removal judgment before the expiry of the time-limit set for the applicant to make her submissions. Moreover, the Enforcement Office had started to demolish the house before the delivery to the applicant of the appellate court’s decision and the expiry of the time-limit. Furthermore, the European Court gave consideration to the fact that when the Supreme Court, on 04/03/1996, had rejected the applicant’s request for a stay of the removal proceedings and refused her leave to appeal in those proceedings, there had been ongoing proceedings concerning the possible division of the jointly owned property. It finally took into account that the house was used only by the applicant and her close family and could not be seen from the plots used by the other joint owners seeking its removal.

I. Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

b) Individual measures

In 1997 and 2002 the applicant was granted building permits authorising her among other things to rebuild a house on the site of the demolished one, belonging henceforth to her as an individual plot.

Consequently, no other measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II. General measures

The violation in the present case seems to be due to the complexity of the proceedings, rather than a flaw in the relevant legislation

A summary and a copy of the European Court’s judgment were sent to the Supreme Court, all Courts of Appeal, the District Court concerned, the Enforcement Office and the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Particular attention was drawn to the European Court’s findings that the Supreme Court should have awaited the outcome of the other pending proceedings before rejecting the applicant’s request for a stay of the removal proceedings and refusing her leave to appeal in those proceedings.

In addition, a summary of the judgment was published in the Svensk Juristtidning, a widely read legal journal. This article particularly emphasises the lack of coordination between the various judicial bodies involved in the case.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Sweden has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.