Quick answer
In Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden (Plenary Court, 23 September 1982, applications nos. 7151/75 and 7152/75), the European Court of Human Rights held that long-standing expropriation permits and prohibitions on construction affecting the applicants’ properties, without any possibility of review or compensation, violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (by ten votes to nine) and Article 6 § 1 (by twelve votes to seven). It is the foundational judgment on the protection of property and the “fair balance” test.
Background and facts
The applicants owned properties in central Stockholm that were made subject to expropriation permits (in view of possible future redevelopment) and, at the same time, to prohibitions on construction. These measures remained in force for very long periods — around twenty-three years in one case and some years in the other — even though the city never in fact expropriated the properties. Throughout that time the owners were left in a state of uncertainty, unable to develop or fully use their land, with no right to compensation for the burden imposed and no means of having the permits reviewed by a court.
The complaint
- Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 — that the prolonged permits and prohibitions interfered disproportionately with the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions;
- Article 6 § 1 — that they could not have the permits reviewed by a court; and
- Article 14 — discrimination.
The Court’s reasoning
The Court analysed Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as containing three distinct rules: the first, a general principle of peaceful enjoyment of possessions; the second, governing deprivation of possessions and subjecting it to conditions; and the third, recognising that States may control the use of property in the general interest. The three rules are connected: the second and third concern particular interferences and must be construed in the light of the general principle in the first.
Here there had been no formal expropriation, so the applicants had not been “deprived” of their possessions; but the permits and prohibitions taken together significantly affected their ability to use and dispose of their property and reduced its value, amounting to an interference under the first rule. The Court held that any interference must strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights. The prolonged and inflexible measures, without any possibility of seeking a reduction of the time-limits or compensation, imposed an individual and excessive burden on the applicants and upset that fair balance, in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The inability to challenge the permits before a court additionally breached Article 6 § 1.
The judgment
- by ten votes to nine, a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
- by twelve votes to seven, a violation of Article 6 § 1; and
- unanimously, no violation of Article 14.
Legacy and subsequent case law
Sporrong and Lönnroth is the cornerstone of the Court’s property case law. The “three rules” analysis and the “fair balance” / “individual and excessive burden” test are applied in virtually every case under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, from planning and expropriation to taxation, confiscation and regulation of property.
What this means for applicants
- Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 protects against disproportionate interference with property, even short of formal expropriation.
- A fair balance must be struck; prolonged uncertainty and inflexible restrictions without compensation can impose an excessive burden.
- Access to a court to challenge such measures is protected by Article 6.
This page summarises a leading judgment and is not legal advice on any individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden decide?
The Court held that prolonged expropriation permits and construction prohibitions, without compensation or judicial review, violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1, because they upset the fair balance and imposed an individual and excessive burden.
What are the “three rules” of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
The general principle of peaceful enjoyment of possessions; the rule on deprivation of possessions; and the rule allowing control of the use of property in the general interest — read together in the light of the general principle.
What is the “fair balance” test?
Any interference with property must strike a fair balance between the general interest and the protection of the individual’s rights; a measure imposing an individual and excessive burden upsets that balance.
Convention Articles engaged
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
- Hutten-Czapska v. Poland
- The J. Paul Getty Trust and Others v. Italy
- Salduz v. Turkey
- Kudła v. Poland
- Winterwerp v. the Netherlands
- Selmouni v. France
Facing a similar case?
Our lawyers represent individuals before the European Court of Human Rights. Speak to an ECHR lawyer, learn how to apply to the ECHR, or check the admissibility criteria.