PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 35179/97) against the Kingdom of Sweden lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Swedish national, Ms Inga Allard (“the applicant”), on 27 November 1996.

The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr P. Lindquist, a lawyer practising in Tyresö. The Swedish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms E. Jagander, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant alleged, in particular, that the demolition of a house had violated her rights to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions and to respect for her home under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 8 of the Convention respectively.

The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11).

The application was allocated to the First Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.

By a decision of 22 May 2001, the Chamber declared the application partly admissible.

The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). The Chamber having decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3 in fine), the parties replied in writing to each other’s observations.

On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was allocated to the newly composed Fourth Section (Rule 52 § 1).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Spånga.

In 1935 the applicant’s mother and her four siblings jointly inherited two estates – Marum 1:6 and Marum 1:8 – from their father. The ownership of the estates, consisting of several islands in the archipelago of Stockholm, was over the years partly transferred to other members of the family. Disagreements arose between the family members. Some of them wished to divide the property (klyvning) and thus dissolve the joint ownership, but the applicant’s mother opposed this idea.

On the land managed by the applicant’s mother – which formed part of Marum 1:8 – the mother owned a number of houses. Two of the houses were used by the applicant’s two sisters. A third house situated on the property was considered too small for the applicant’s needs and it was therefore decided to enlarge it. The applicant applied for a building permit to the Österåker Building Committee (byggnadsnämnden). On 9 September 1987, finding that the enlargement could not be approved as the house in question was situated too close to the shore, the committee nevertheless granted a permit for the building of a new house further away from the shore. The new house was built in 1988.

On 4 August 1989 the applicant’s mother died, leaving four children, namely the applicant, her brother and her two sisters. However, no distribution of the mother’s estate was made before 1991. By a partial division on 29 June 1991, the new house was transferred to the applicant.

On 21 December 1989 practically all the other joint owners of the two estates brought proceedings against the applicant in the District Court (tingsrätten) of Södra Roslag, requesting that she be ordered to remove the new house on Marum 1:8 as it had been built without their consent, contrary to the requirements of the Joint Ownership Act (Lagen om samäganderätt, 1904:48 – “the 1904 Act”). The applicant disputed this and argued, inter alia, that it was her mother who had built the house and that accordingly it belonged to her mother’s estate. Thus, she was not the proper defendant in the case.

By a judgment of 10 May 1990 (“the removal judgment”) the District Court declared that the applicant was to remove the house, or risk having it demolished at her expense. The court stated, inter alia, that it was the applicant who owned the house and that she had built it without the necessary consent of all the other joint owners.

In 1991 one of the joint owners applied for the sale of Marum 1:6 and Marum 1:8 at a public auction. On 22 May 1992 the District Court decided to stay those proceedings.

On 22 February 1994 the District Court’s removal judgment was upheld on appeal by the Svea Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt).

The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen). She later requested, inter alia, that no further action be taken on the case pending the outcome of division proceedings which she had begun in October 1990. In these proceedings, the applicant claimed that the joint ownership of the two estates should be dissolved and individual plots be assigned to the family members. Following several decisions taken by the Real Estate Formation Authority (Fastighetsbildningsmyndigheten – “the REFA”) and the courts, the case had to be referred back by the Court of Appeal to the REFA for re-examination as the latter had made procedural errors. Subsequently, by a decision of 1 December 1995, the REFA allowed the creation of four individual plots on Marum 1:8 but rejected the applicant’s request for the creation of an individual plot around the new house on account of the Court of Appeal’s ruling that that house be removed. The applicant appealed against the REFA’s decision to the Real Estate Court (fastighetsdomstolen) in Stockholm. As an alternative ground for staying the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the applicant pleaded that, in March 1995, she had requested that the District Court give a declaratory judgment on the question of ownership of the new house.

By a decision of 4 March 1996 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request to have the removal proceedings stayed and refused her leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s ruling.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, several family members requested that the Enforcement Office (kronofogdemyndigheten – “the Office”) enforce the removal judgment. On 7 March 1996 the Office ordered the applicant to remove the house before 3 April 1996 or risk having it demolished by the Office at her own expense. By a later decision the time-limit was extended until 19 April 1996.

On 14 March 1996, at the Real Estate Court’s request, the Central Office of the National Land Survey (Lantmäteriverket – “the Central Office”) gave its opinion in the division proceedings. It considered that the removal judgment did not prevent the creation of an individual plot around the house in issue. On the contrary, this could preserve the house and reduce the risk of adverse consequences for the applicant. Thus, the Central Office recommended that the applicant be assigned an individual plot.

However, on 3 April 1996 the Enforcement Office refused the applicant a further postponement of the enforcement of the removal judgment. On 15 May 1996 the District Court upheld the Enforcement Office’s decisions and rejected the applicant’s request for a stay of the enforcement. Subsequently, the Enforcement Office, on 20 May 1996, decided that the house was to be demolished by a construction firm on 3 June 1996.

The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal, requesting an immediate stay of the demolition order. She submitted that enforcement of the removal judgment should be stayed until the division proceedings or, in the alternative, until the ownership proceedings had been concluded. She also claimed that she had not been given the opportunity to remove the house herself in accordance with the District Court’s judgment of 10 May 1990. She stated that she had started to dismantle the house but was not able to complete the work before 3 June 1996. Furthermore, the applicant requested a three-week respite in order to substantiate her appeal.

By a decision of 31 May 1996 the Court of Appeal ordered the applicant to complete her appeal by 12 midnight on 5 June 1996. On the same day, that is on 31 May, the Court of Appeal received a letter from the applicant in which she requested an immediate stay of the demolition order. She submitted, inter alia, that enforcement of the removal judgment should be stayed until the division proceedings had been concluded or, in the alternative, until the Real Estate Court had decided the question. She also requested a three-week respite to substantiate her appeal.

The appellate court’s order for the completion of the appeal – which was sent to the applicant’s address at the time in Spånga – was allegedly not received by the applicant until the evening of 5 June, as she had been at the site of the house in issue. On the morning of 6 June she sent a fax to the appellate court, asking for a ten-day respite for the completion of her appeal.

However, at a session held on 3 June 1996 the Court of Appeal had already examined the case and, by a decision delivered the following day, refused the applicant leave to appeal against the District Court’s decision of 15 May 1996. Thus, no further stay of the enforcement proceedings was granted. It appears from the court files that the applicant called the Court of Appeal on 6 June and was told that the case had already been examined and that regard had been had to the contents of her letter of 31 May. On 5 July 1996 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal against the appellate court’s decision.

The house in issue was therefore demolished by a construction firm. The applicant had claimed that her appeal against the District Court’s decision of 15 May 1996 prevented the enforcement of the removal judgment. However, this claim was rejected by the Enforcement Office on 31 May 1996, referring to Chapter 3, section 21, of the Enforcement Code (Utsökningsbalken). The demolition of the house began on 3 June 1996 and was concluded ten days later. On 25 June 1996 the Enforcement Office declared that the house had been demolished and that accordingly the removal judgment had been duly enforced. However, this decision was appealed against by the other joint owners on the ground that the building material had not been removed from the property. On 13 September 1996 the District Court, finding in favour of the appellants, quashed the Enforcement Office’s decision that the enforcement had been finalised and referred the matter back to the Office. Leave to appeal against the District Court’s decision was refused by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court on 30 September and 25 October 1996 respectively. On 27 September 1996 the Enforcement Office ordered the applicant to remove the building material from the property before 29 October 1996.

On 6 August 1996 the Enforcement Office ordered the applicant to pay the enforcement costs of 114,796 kronor. The applicant appealed and applied for legal aid in the matter. By a decision of 9 September 1996 the District Court rejected the applicant’s application for legal aid on the ground that she did not have a legitimate interest in having the case heard as the enforcement had been concluded. The applicant’s further appeal was rejected by the Court of Appeal on 13 December 1996. On 28 April 1997 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.

On 22 November 1996 the Real Estate Court gave judgment in the division proceedings. It decided that Marum 1:8 should be divided into six individual plots and one common plot. The applicant was assigned a plot where the now demolished house had been situated. In this respect, the Real Estate Court thus agreed with the opinion given by the Central Office of the National Land Survey on 14 March 1996. The Real Estate Court’s judgment was upheld on appeal by the Court of Appeal on 2 November 1998. On 14 April 2000 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.

By a judgment of 26 November 1996 the District Court decided another removal case which had been brought by the applicant and her sister in 1994. Apparently in response to the removal proceedings brought against the applicant, they had claimed that several other joint owners of Marum 1:6 and 1:8 should remove buildings they had erected on the estates. However, the District Court rejected the claims, finding that the buildings had been erected before 1991 – when the applicant and her sister, through the partial division of their mother’s estate, had become joint owners of the two properties – and that the other joint owners at the time had expressly or impliedly consented to the various building projects. Furthermore, considering that the claimants did not have a legitimate interest in having their cases heard, the court also decided that further litigation in this respect should not be paid for through public legal aid. Thus, with effect from the date of the judgment, the legal aid previously awarded was withdrawn. The applicant and her sister appealed against the judgment, submitting, inter alia, that the District Court’s decision on legal aid should be quashed. However, on 3 October 1997 the Court of Appeal upheld the legal-aid decision. On 16 January 1998 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal. Stating that they were unable to plead their case properly without legal aid, the applicant and her sister, by a letter to the Court of Appeal of 1 November 1999, withdrew most of their claims in the removal case.

By a declaratory judgment of 10 July 1997 in proceedings concerning the ownership of the house in issue, the District Court agreed with the applicant’s argument, submitted to the court in March 1995, that the house had been erected on her mother’s behalf and thus formed part of the latter’s estate. Accordingly, at the time of the District Court’s removal judgment of 10 May 1990, the house had not belonged to the applicant. Thus, in this respect, the court came to a different conclusion from the one reached in the removal judgment. Following an appeal, the declaratory judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 26 February 1998. No further appeal was lodged and the appellate court’s judgment consequently acquired legal force.

By decisions of 4 February 1997 and 29 February 2000, the Building Committee granted the applicant building permits for the reconstruction of the demolished house and the construction of two smaller outbuildings.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e1
001-61164_a11_em1
CODE
DIRECT
35179/97
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e2
001-61164_a11_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Kingdom of Sweden
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e3
001-61164_a11_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
Swedish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e4
001-61164_a11_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Ms Inga Allard
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e5
001-61164_a11_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
27 November 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e6
001-61164_a11_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Mr P. Lindquist
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e7
001-61164_a11_em7
LOC
NO_MASK
Tyresö
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e8
001-61164_a11_em8
ORG
NO_MASK
Swedish Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61164_a11_e8
001-61164_a11_em9
ORG
NO_MASK
001-61164_a11_em8
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e9
001-61164_a11_em10
PERSON
QUASI
Ms E. Jagander
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61164_a11_e10
001-61164_a11_em11
DATETIME
QUASI
1 November 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e11
001-61164_a11_em12
DATETIME
QUASI
22 May 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e8
001-61164_a11_em13
ORG
NO_MASK
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61164_a11_e12
001-61164_a11_em14
DATETIME
QUASI
1 November 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e13
001-61164_a11_em15
DATETIME
QUASI
1947
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e14
001-61164_a11_em16
LOC
QUASI
Spånga
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e15
001-61164_a11_em17
DATETIME
QUASI
1935
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61164_a11_e16
001-61164_a11_em18
LOC
QUASI
Marum 1:6
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61164_a11_e17
001-61164_a11_em19
LOC
QUASI
Marum 1:8
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e18
001-61164_a11_em20
LOC
NO_MASK
Stockholm
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e19
001-61164_a11_em21
DATETIME
NO_MASK
years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e17
001-61164_a11_em22
LOC
QUASI
Marum 1:8
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e20
001-61164_a11_em23
ORG
QUASI
Österåker Building Committee
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61164_a11_e21
001-61164_a11_em24
ORG
NO_MASK
byggnadsnämnden
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e22
001-61164_a11_em25
DATETIME
QUASI
9 September 1987
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e23
001-61164_a11_em26
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1988
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e24
001-61164_a11_em27
DATETIME
QUASI
4 August 1989
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e25
001-61164_a11_em28
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1991
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e26
001-61164_a11_em29
DATETIME
QUASI
29 June 1991
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e27
001-61164_a11_em30
DATETIME
QUASI
21 December 1989
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e28
001-61164_a11_em31
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61164_a11_e29
001-61164_a11_em32
ORG
NO_MASK
tingsrätten
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61164_a11_e30
001-61164_a11_em33
LOC
QUASI
Södra Roslag
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61164_a11_e17
001-61164_a11_em34
LOC
QUASI
Marum 1:8
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e31
001-61164_a11_em35
DATETIME
QUASI
10 May 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e28
001-61164_a11_em36
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e25
001-61164_a11_em37
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1991
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e16
001-61164_a11_em38
LOC
QUASI
Marum 1:6
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e17
001-61164_a11_em39
LOC
QUASI
Marum 1:8
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e32
001-61164_a11_em40
DATETIME
QUASI
22 May 1992
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e28
001-61164_a11_em41
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e33
001-61164_a11_em42
DATETIME
QUASI
22 February 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61164_a11_e28
001-61164_a11_em43
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e34
001-61164_a11_em44
ORG
NO_MASK
Svea Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61164_a11_e34
001-61164_a11_em45
ORG
NO_MASK
001-61164_a11_em44
Svea hovrätt
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e35
001-61164_a11_em46
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61164_a11_e35
001-61164_a11_em47
ORG
NO_MASK
001-61164_a11_em46
Högsta domstolen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e36
001-61164_a11_em48
DATETIME
QUASI
October 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e37
001-61164_a11_em49
ORG
NO_MASK
Real Estate Formation Authority
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e37
001-61164_a11_em50
ORG
NO_MASK
001-61164_a11_em49
Fastighetsbildningsmyndigheten
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e37
001-61164_a11_em51
ORG
NO_MASK
001-61164_a11_em49
REFA
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61164_a11_e38
001-61164_a11_em52
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61164_a11_e37
001-61164_a11_em53
ORG
NO_MASK
REFA
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e39
001-61164_a11_em54
DATETIME
QUASI
1 December 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e37
001-61164_a11_em55
ORG
NO_MASK
REFA
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e17
001-61164_a11_em56
LOC
QUASI
Marum 1:8
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e38
001-61164_a11_em57
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e37
001-61164_a11_em58
ORG
NO_MASK
REFA
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e40
001-61164_a11_em59
ORG
NO_MASK
Real Estate Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e18
001-61164_a11_em60
LOC
NO_MASK
Stockholm
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e35
001-61164_a11_em61
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e41
001-61164_a11_em62
DATETIME
QUASI
March 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e28
001-61164_a11_em63
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e42
001-61164_a11_em64
DATETIME
QUASI
4 March 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e35
001-61164_a11_em65
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e38
001-61164_a11_em66
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61164_a11_e35
001-61164_a11_em67
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e43
001-61164_a11_em68
ORG
NO_MASK
Enforcement Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e43
001-61164_a11_em69
ORG
NO_MASK
001-61164_a11_em68
Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e44
001-61164_a11_em70
DATETIME
QUASI
7 March 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e43
001-61164_a11_em71
ORG
NO_MASK
Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e45
001-61164_a11_em72
DATETIME
QUASI
before 3 April 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e43
001-61164_a11_em73
ORG
NO_MASK
Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e46
001-61164_a11_em74
DATETIME
QUASI
19 April 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e47
001-61164_a11_em75
DATETIME
QUASI
14 March 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61164_a11_e40
001-61164_a11_em76
ORG
NO_MASK
Real Estate Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e48
001-61164_a11_em77
ORG
NO_MASK
Central Office of the National Land Survey
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61164_a11_e48
001-61164_a11_em78
ORG
NO_MASK
001-61164_a11_em77
Lantmäteriverket
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e48
001-61164_a11_em79
ORG
NO_MASK
001-61164_a11_em77
Central Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e48
001-61164_a11_em80
ORG
NO_MASK
Central Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e49
001-61164_a11_em81
DATETIME
QUASI
3 April 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e43
001-61164_a11_em82
ORG
NO_MASK
Enforcement Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e50
001-61164_a11_em83
DATETIME
QUASI
15 May 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e28
001-61164_a11_em84
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61164_a11_e43
001-61164_a11_em85
ORG
NO_MASK
Enforcement Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e43
001-61164_a11_em86
ORG
NO_MASK
Enforcement Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e51
001-61164_a11_em87
DATETIME
QUASI
20 May 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e52
001-61164_a11_em88
DATETIME
QUASI
3 June 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e38
001-61164_a11_em89
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e28
001-61164_a11_em90
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e31
001-61164_a11_em91
DATETIME
QUASI
10 May 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e52
001-61164_a11_em92
DATETIME
QUASI
3 June 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e53
001-61164_a11_em93
DATETIME
NO_MASK
three-week
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e54
001-61164_a11_em94
DATETIME
QUASI
31 May 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e38
001-61164_a11_em95
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e55
001-61164_a11_em96
DATETIME
NO_MASK
12 midnight
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e56
001-61164_a11_em97
DATETIME
QUASI
5 June 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e57
001-61164_a11_em98
DATETIME
NO_MASK
31 May
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e38
001-61164_a11_em99
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e40
001-61164_a11_em100
ORG
NO_MASK
Real Estate Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e53
001-61164_a11_em101
DATETIME
NO_MASK
three-week
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e14
001-61164_a11_em102
LOC
QUASI
Spånga
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e58
001-61164_a11_em103
DATETIME
NO_MASK
evening of 5 June
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e59
001-61164_a11_em104
DATETIME
NO_MASK
6 June
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e60
001-61164_a11_em105
DATETIME
NO_MASK
ten-day
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e52
001-61164_a11_em106
DATETIME
QUASI
3 June 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e38
001-61164_a11_em107
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e61
001-61164_a11_em108
DATETIME
NO_MASK
following day
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e28
001-61164_a11_em109
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e50
001-61164_a11_em110
DATETIME
QUASI
15 May 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e38
001-61164_a11_em111
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e59
001-61164_a11_em112
DATETIME
NO_MASK
6 June
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61164_a11_e57
001-61164_a11_em113
DATETIME
QUASI
31 May
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e62
001-61164_a11_em114
DATETIME
QUASI
5 July 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e35
001-61164_a11_em115
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e28
001-61164_a11_em116
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e50
001-61164_a11_em117
DATETIME
QUASI
15 May 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e43
001-61164_a11_em118
ORG
NO_MASK
Enforcement Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e54
001-61164_a11_em119
DATETIME
QUASI
31 May 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e52
001-61164_a11_em120
DATETIME
QUASI
3 June 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e63
001-61164_a11_em121
DATETIME
NO_MASK
ten days later
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e64
001-61164_a11_em122
DATETIME
QUASI
25 June 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e43
001-61164_a11_em123
ORG
NO_MASK
Enforcement Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e65
001-61164_a11_em124
DATETIME
QUASI
13 September 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e28
001-61164_a11_em125
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e43
001-61164_a11_em126
ORG
NO_MASK
Enforcement Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e43
001-61164_a11_em127
ORG
NO_MASK
Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e28
001-61164_a11_em128
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e38
001-61164_a11_em129
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e35
001-61164_a11_em130
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e66
001-61164_a11_em131
DATETIME
NO_MASK
30 September
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e67
001-61164_a11_em132
DATETIME
QUASI
25 October 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e68
001-61164_a11_em133
DATETIME
QUASI
27 September 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e43
001-61164_a11_em134
ORG
NO_MASK
Enforcement Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e69
001-61164_a11_em135
DATETIME
QUASI
29 October 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e70
001-61164_a11_em136
DATETIME
QUASI
6 August 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e43
001-61164_a11_em137
ORG
NO_MASK
Enforcement Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e71
001-61164_a11_em138
QUANTITY
QUASI
114,796 kronor
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e72
001-61164_a11_em139
DATETIME
QUASI
9 September 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e28
001-61164_a11_em140
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e38
001-61164_a11_em141
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e73
001-61164_a11_em142
DATETIME
NO_MASK
13 December 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e74
001-61164_a11_em143
DATETIME
NO_MASK
28 April 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e35
001-61164_a11_em144
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e75
001-61164_a11_em145
DATETIME
QUASI
22 November 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e40
001-61164_a11_em146
ORG
NO_MASK
Real Estate Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e17
001-61164_a11_em147
LOC
QUASI
Marum 1:8
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e40
001-61164_a11_em148
ORG
NO_MASK
Real Estate Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e48
001-61164_a11_em149
ORG
NO_MASK
Central Office of the National Land Survey
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e47
001-61164_a11_em150
DATETIME
QUASI
14 March 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e40
001-61164_a11_em151
ORG
NO_MASK
Real Estate Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e38
001-61164_a11_em152
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e76
001-61164_a11_em153
DATETIME
QUASI
2 November 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e77
001-61164_a11_em154
DATETIME
QUASI
14 April 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e35
001-61164_a11_em155
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e78
001-61164_a11_em156
DATETIME
QUASI
26 November 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e28
001-61164_a11_em157
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e79
001-61164_a11_em158
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e16
001-61164_a11_em159
LOC
QUASI
Marum 1:6
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61164_a11_e80
001-61164_a11_em160
LOC
QUASI
1:8
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e28
001-61164_a11_em161
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e25
001-61164_a11_em162
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1991
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e28
001-61164_a11_em163
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e81
001-61164_a11_em164
DATETIME
QUASI
3 October 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e38
001-61164_a11_em165
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e82
001-61164_a11_em166
DATETIME
QUASI
16 January 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e35
001-61164_a11_em167
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61164_a11_e83
001-61164_a11_em168
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1 November 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e84
001-61164_a11_em169
DATETIME
QUASI
10 July 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e28
001-61164_a11_em170
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e41
001-61164_a11_em171
DATETIME
QUASI
March 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e28
001-61164_a11_em172
ORG
NO_MASK
District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e31
001-61164_a11_em173
DATETIME
QUASI
10 May 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e38
001-61164_a11_em174
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e85
001-61164_a11_em175
DATETIME
QUASI
26 February 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e86
001-61164_a11_em176
DATETIME
QUASI
4 February 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e87
001-61164_a11_em177
DATETIME
QUASI
29 February 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61164_a11_e88
001-61164_a11_em178
ORG
NO_MASK
Building Committee
Inga Allard
SWE
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Inga Allard