PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 29878/09) against the Kingdom of Sweden lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by eighteen Swedish nationals, Ms Karin Andersson, Mr Per Bernhardtson, Ms Gunilla Bring, Mr Ulf Bäcklund, Mr Berndt Eriksson, Ms Carina Granberg, Ms Agneta Holmström, Mr Gustaf Härestål, Mr Björn Höjer, Ms Inga-Britt Höjer, Mr Christer Johansson, Mr Curt Lindgren, Mr Håkan Olsson, Mr Roger Olsson, Mr Göran Osterman, Mr Lars Sjöstedt, Mr Christer Skoog and Mr Olle Stenlund (“the applicants”), on 4 June 2009.

The applicants were represented by Mr J. Ebbesson, a professor of environmental law, and Mr B. Rosengren, a lawyer, both practising in Stockholm. The Swedish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr A. Rönquist, of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

The applicants alleged, in particular, that they had been denied effective access to court in relation to decisions taken on the construction of a railway, in violation of their rights under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention.

On 21 May 2012 the application was communicated to the Government.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicants own property close to Umeå, in the vicinity of a Natura 2000 area, the European network of nature protection areas established under the EU Habitats Directive of 1992 (see further below at paragraph 33). Most of them live there (permanently or on a part-time basis).

A. Proceedings on permissibility of railway project

On 15 October 1999, the National Rail Administration (Banverket; hereinafter “the NRA”) applied to the Government for permission, under the Environmental Code (Miljöbalken), to construct a 10 km long railway section in a river area in the north of Sweden (constituting the final section of a railway called “Botniabanan”, the total length of which is 190 km). The NRA presented some alternative railway stretches, all located in a specified “corridor”, but recommended the one named “alternative east”. The proposed railway construction concerned certain areas which were or were going to be part of Natura 2000.

It appears that six of the present applicants own houses or land within the mentioned “corridor”: Ms Carina Granberg, Ms Agneta Holmström, Mr Gustaf Härestål, Mr Björn Höjer, Ms Inga-Britt Höjer, and Mr Christer Skoog. Ownership of Mr Skoog’s property was transferred to Ms Granberg on 7 January 2011. The properties of the other twelve applicants – houses and land in their ownership or owned houses located on non-freehold sites – are situated outside the “corridor”. The distance from their properties to the “corridor” or the specific stretch of the railway fixed in later proceedings vary; the houses appear to be situated 300 – 2500 metres away whereas the closest piece of land is located about 50 metres from the “corridor”.

On 12 June 2003 the Government, after having heard the European Commission, granted the application and allowed the construction of the railway in the proposed “corridor” under the condition, inter alia, that the NRA adopt a railway plan before 1 July 2009 and also a specific plan for the realisation of the necessary environmental compensation measures in the Natura 2000 areas. The plan on compensation measures had to be presented to the Government before the railway plan was adopted. The Government stated, inter alia, that the activity could be permitted, despite its harmful effect on the environment in a Natura 2000 area, if there were no alternative solutions and the railway had to be constructed for reasons of public interest.

A number of individual property owners, including three of the applicants in the present case – Ms Bring, Mr Bäcklund and Mr Osterman – petitioned the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) for a judicial review of the case and requested that the Government’s decision be quashed. The property owners claimed that the decision contradicted Swedish law as well as applicable European Union law, including the Habitats Directive. It was argued, firstly, that the decision contravened the general rule in the Environmental Code on the site to be chosen for activities and installations that may affect human health or the environment. This aspect allegedly had a direct and clear bearing on their civil rights. Secondly, they asserted that the Government’s decision violated Swedish regulations on nature conservation by failing to consider relevant alternative sites for the railway.

On 1 December 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the petitions for a judicial review because it was not possible to determine who should be considered an interested party at that stage of the railway planning. The exact route of the railway would not be established until the railway plan had been drawn up. Until then, it could not be assessed with any certainty who would be affected to the extent that they were entitled to bring an action or what account should be taken of their interests. Further stating that the parties affected to a sufficient extent by the future railway would be able to obtain a judicial review of the later decision to adopt the railway plan, the court refused the petitioners locus standi.

One judge dissented, finding that the issue of locus standi in respect of each petitioner should be further investigated by the court in order to ensure that the individual interests were taken into account, having regard to the binding character of the Government’s decision in the later railway planning proceedings.

B. Proceedings on permits for construction of railway and bridges

In 2003 and 2004 the NRA applied to the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen) in the County of Västerbotten for a permit to construct the railway in the specific Natura 2000 area and to the Environmental Court (miljödomstolen) in Umeå for permits to build two bridges.

The County Administrative Board granted a construction permit for the railway by a decision of 14 October 2004, which was subsequently appealed against to the Environmental Court.

The Environmental Court decided to examine the cases jointly. By judgments of 24 May 2005 and 13 June 2005, considering itself bound by the Government’s decision of 12 June 2003 on the permissibility of the railway project, the court decided to grant all the permits requested by the NRA.

On 15 June 2006 the Environmental Court of Appeal (Miljööverdomstolen) in Stockholm quashed the Environmental Court’s judgments and referred the cases back to the latter instance. The appellate court found that the Government’s decision had not contained a detailed examination of measures necessary to compensate for environmental harm caused by the railway project, and that these issues had to be settled as part of the determination of the construction permit requests.

On 26 April 2007 the Environmental Court decided anew to grant the permits requested by the NRA. The court considered itself bound by the Government’s decision as to the permissibility of the railway project and thus limited its examination to the environmental compensation measures, as indicated by the decision of the Environmental Court of Appeal.

Two applicants – Ms Granberg and Mr Skoog – appealed against the Environmental Court’s judgment in so far as it concerned the permit for the railway construction. All applicants except Mr Osterman appealed against the part which concerned the permit to construct the bridges.

By a judgment of 6 December 2007 the Environmental Court of Appeal affirmed the binding nature of the Government’s permissibility decision and approved the construction of the railway and the bridges with certain added conditions.

On 9 May 2008 the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) refused leave to appeal and, thus, the Environmental Court of Appeal’s judgment became final.

C. Proceedings on adoption of railway plan

On 21 June 2005 the NRA adopted a railway plan for the area in question.

Twelve applicants – all but Ms Holmström, Mr Härestål, Mr Höjer, Ms Höjer, Mr Sjöstedt and Mr Stenlund – appealed to the Government against the railway plan. They essentially complained of the specific stretch of the railway, invoking, inter alia, nuisance such as noise and vibrations affecting the enjoyment of their property.

By a decision of 28 June 2007 the Government referred to its decision on permissibility of 12 June 2003. It found that the specific stretch chosen in the railway plan was situated within the permitted “corridor” and thus rejected the appeals.

All of the applicants and several other petitioners turned to the Supreme Administrative Court and requested that it, by way of a judicial review, order the quashing of the Government’s decision. They claimed, inter alia, that, although their civil rights were affected by the planned railway, they had not had these rights considered and determined by a court, in violation of the Convention. As to the chosen location of the railway, they also asserted that the Government’s decision was contrary to provisions of the Environmental Code and the EU Habitats Directive.

On 10 December 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court, after having held a hearing in the case, rejected the petition, finding that the railway plan was in line with the Government’s decision of 12 June 2003 on the permissibility of the railway project and that the proceedings for the adoption of the plan did not demonstrate any failings. The court considered that the question of permissibility of a railway project was within the power of the Government, which had to take into account public interests such as environmental, industrial, economic and regional policy. The Government’s permissibility decision was binding for the subsequent proceedings in that courts and other decision-making bodies could not examine issues that had been determined by that decision. Thus, in the proceedings concerning the construction permits requested by the NRA, the various instances could decide on conditions and other details but not on the general permissibility as defined in the Government’s decision. Similarly, in the third stage of the decision process – the adoption of the railway plan – it was for the authorities and courts to decide only on the precise location of the railway, within the area designated by the Government’s decision. The Government had not been obliged to review its decision of 12 June 2003 on the permissibility of the railway project and the designation of the “corridor” in which the railway could be located. These issues could not be examined in the third stage of the decision process. The Supreme Administrative Court further stated that, if private interests were affected by the location of a railway project, judicial review could be obtained by petitioning the court in proceedings against the Government’s permissibility decision. The fact that the court, on 1 December 2004, had concluded that no individual petitioner could be considered to have locus standi in relation to the permissibility decision did not compel it to include in its current examination of the adoption of the railway plan the issues of permissibility of the project or its general location.

One judge dissented, considering that the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment contravened its decision of 1 December 2004. She noted, inter alia, that the adoption of a railway plan – as opposed to the construction permits – had direct consequences for the individual as it entailed a right for the railway company, under certain conditions, to expropriate land. Consequently, the court, in the instant case, should have examined all the objections presented by the appellants, including the claim that there were better alternative locations for the railway. According to the dissenting judge, a full judicial review had also been foreseen by the court in its earlier decision.

D. Compensation and others measures taken

It appears from the parties’ observations in the case that at least ten of the applicants (including seven with houses or land situated outside the “corridor”) have received some form of compensation as a consequence of the railway construction, either for land requisitioned or for reduced residential value or market value. In one case, the change to noise-reducing windows was partly paid by the NRA. It is not clear whether the other applicants requested compensation. In the vicinity of some properties, whose owners have not received compensation, noise barriers have been erected in order to keep the noise from the railway below the applicable target values.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e1
001-146399_a8_em1
CODE
DIRECT
29878/09
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e2
001-146399_a8_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Kingdom of Sweden
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e3
001-146399_a8_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
Swedish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e4
001-146399_a8_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Ms Karin Andersson
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e5
001-146399_a8_em5
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Per Bernhardtson
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146399_a8_e6
001-146399_a8_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Ms Gunilla Bring
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e7
001-146399_a8_em7
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Ulf Bäcklund
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e8
001-146399_a8_em8
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Berndt Eriksson
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e9
001-146399_a8_em9
PERSON
QUASI
Ms Carina Granberg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e10
001-146399_a8_em10
PERSON
QUASI
Ms Agneta Holmström
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e11
001-146399_a8_em11
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Gustaf Härestål
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e12
001-146399_a8_em12
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Björn Höjer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e13
001-146399_a8_em13
PERSON
QUASI
Ms Inga-Britt Höjer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e14
001-146399_a8_em14
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Christer Johansson
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e15
001-146399_a8_em15
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Curt Lindgren
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e16
001-146399_a8_em16
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Håkan Olsson
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e17
001-146399_a8_em17
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Roger Olsson
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e18
001-146399_a8_em18
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Göran Osterman
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e19
001-146399_a8_em19
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Lars Sjöstedt
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e20
001-146399_a8_em20
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Christer Skoog
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e21
001-146399_a8_em21
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Olle Stenlund
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e22
001-146399_a8_em22
DATETIME
QUASI
4 June 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e23
001-146399_a8_em23
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Ebbesson
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146399_a8_e24
001-146399_a8_em24
DEM
NO_MASK
professor of environmental law
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e25
001-146399_a8_em25
PERSON
QUASI
Mr B. Rosengren
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e26
001-146399_a8_em26
LOC
NO_MASK
Stockholm
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e3
001-146399_a8_em27
DEM
NO_MASK
Swedish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e27
001-146399_a8_em28
PERSON
QUASI
Mr A. Rönquist
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146399_a8_e28
001-146399_a8_em29
ORG
NO_MASK
Ministry for Foreign Affairs
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e29
001-146399_a8_em30
DATETIME
QUASI
21 May 2012
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-146399_a8_e30
001-146399_a8_em31
LOC
QUASI
Umeå
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e31
001-146399_a8_em32
DATETIME
QUASI
15 October 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146399_a8_e32
001-146399_a8_em33
ORG
NO_MASK
001-146399_a8_em38
National Rail Administration (Banverket; hereinafter “the NRA”)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146399_a8_e33
001-146399_a8_em34
QUANTITY
QUASI
10 km
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-146399_a8_e34
001-146399_a8_em35
LOC
NO_MASK
Sweden
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146399_a8_e35
001-146399_a8_em36
MISC
NO_MASK
Botniabanan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e36
001-146399_a8_em37
QUANTITY
QUASI
190 km
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146399_a8_e32
001-146399_a8_em38
ORG
NO_MASK
NRA
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e9
001-146399_a8_em39
PERSON
QUASI
Ms Carina Granberg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e10
001-146399_a8_em40
PERSON
QUASI
Ms Agneta Holmström
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e11
001-146399_a8_em41
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Gustaf Härestål
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e12
001-146399_a8_em42
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Björn Höjer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e13
001-146399_a8_em43
PERSON
QUASI
Ms Inga-Britt Höjer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e20
001-146399_a8_em44
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Christer Skoog
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e37
001-146399_a8_em45
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Skoog
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e38
001-146399_a8_em46
PERSON
QUASI
Ms Granberg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e39
001-146399_a8_em47
DATETIME
QUASI
7 January 2011
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e40
001-146399_a8_em48
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
300 – 2500 metres
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146399_a8_e41
001-146399_a8_em49
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
50 metres
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e42
001-146399_a8_em50
DATETIME
QUASI
12 June 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e32
001-146399_a8_em51
ORG
NO_MASK
NRA
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e43
001-146399_a8_em52
DATETIME
QUASI
1 July 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e44
001-146399_a8_em53
PERSON
QUASI
Ms Bring
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e45
001-146399_a8_em54
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Bäcklund
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e46
001-146399_a8_em55
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Osterman
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146399_a8_e47
001-146399_a8_em56
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e3
001-146399_a8_em57
DEM
NO_MASK
Swedish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e48
001-146399_a8_em58
ORG
NO_MASK
European Union
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e3
001-146399_a8_em59
DEM
NO_MASK
Swedish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e49
001-146399_a8_em60
DATETIME
QUASI
1 December 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e50
001-146399_a8_em61
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e51
001-146399_a8_em62
DATETIME
QUASI
2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e52
001-146399_a8_em63
DATETIME
QUASI
2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e32
001-146399_a8_em64
ORG
NO_MASK
NRA
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146399_a8_e53
001-146399_a8_em65
ORG
NO_MASK
001-146399_a8_em69
County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e54
001-146399_a8_em66
LOC
QUASI
County of Västerbotten
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146399_a8_e55
001-146399_a8_em67
ORG
NO_MASK
Environmental Court (miljödomstolen)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e30
001-146399_a8_em68
LOC
QUASI
Umeå
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146399_a8_e53
001-146399_a8_em69
ORG
NO_MASK
County Administrative Board
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e56
001-146399_a8_em70
DATETIME
QUASI
14 October 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e57
001-146399_a8_em71
ORG
NO_MASK
Environmental Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146399_a8_e57
001-146399_a8_em72
ORG
NO_MASK
Environmental Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e58
001-146399_a8_em73
DATETIME
QUASI
24 May 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e59
001-146399_a8_em74
DATETIME
QUASI
13 June 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e42
001-146399_a8_em75
DATETIME
QUASI
12 June 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e32
001-146399_a8_em76
ORG
NO_MASK
NRA
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e60
001-146399_a8_em77
DATETIME
QUASI
15 June 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146399_a8_e61
001-146399_a8_em78
ORG
NO_MASK
Environmental Court of Appeal (Miljööverdomstolen)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e26
001-146399_a8_em79
LOC
NO_MASK
Stockholm
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e62
001-146399_a8_em80
ORG
NO_MASK
Environmental Court’s
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e63
001-146399_a8_em81
DATETIME
QUASI
26 April 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e57
001-146399_a8_em82
ORG
NO_MASK
Environmental Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e32
001-146399_a8_em83
ORG
NO_MASK
NRA
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e57
001-146399_a8_em84
ORG
NO_MASK
Environmental Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e38
001-146399_a8_em85
PERSON
QUASI
Ms Granberg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e37
001-146399_a8_em86
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Skoog
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e62
001-146399_a8_em87
ORG
NO_MASK
Environmental Court’s
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e46
001-146399_a8_em88
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Osterman
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e64
001-146399_a8_em89
DATETIME
QUASI
6 December 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e57
001-146399_a8_em90
ORG
NO_MASK
Environmental Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e65
001-146399_a8_em91
DATETIME
QUASI
9 May 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146399_a8_e66
001-146399_a8_em92
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e57
001-146399_a8_em93
ORG
NO_MASK
Environmental Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e67
001-146399_a8_em94
DATETIME
QUASI
21 June 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e32
001-146399_a8_em95
ORG
NO_MASK
NRA
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e68
001-146399_a8_em96
PERSON
QUASI
Ms Holmström
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e69
001-146399_a8_em97
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Härestål
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e70
001-146399_a8_em98
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Höjer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e71
001-146399_a8_em99
PERSON
QUASI
Ms Höjer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e72
001-146399_a8_em100
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Sjöstedt
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e73
001-146399_a8_em101
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Stenlund
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e74
001-146399_a8_em102
DATETIME
QUASI
28 June 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e42
001-146399_a8_em103
DATETIME
QUASI
12 June 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146399_a8_e50
001-146399_a8_em104
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e75
001-146399_a8_em105
DATETIME
QUASI
10 December 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e50
001-146399_a8_em106
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e42
001-146399_a8_em107
DATETIME
QUASI
12 June 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e32
001-146399_a8_em108
ORG
NO_MASK
NRA
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e42
001-146399_a8_em109
DATETIME
QUASI
12 June 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e50
001-146399_a8_em110
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e49
001-146399_a8_em111
DATETIME
QUASI
1 December 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-146399_a8_e50
001-146399_a8_em112
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e49
001-146399_a8_em113
DATETIME
QUASI
1 December 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-146399_a8_e32
001-146399_a8_em114
ORG
NO_MASK
NRA
Karin Andersson
SWE
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Karin Andersson