The case of Fredin v. Sweden is an example of a situation where the interests of an individual and a state clash. In this situation, the court considered a case that affected the protection of nature and the human right to own property and sentenced in favor of the state. However, although the Fredins had a legal justification for the lawsuit, the state did not violate his rights and even partially reimbursed costs and expenses for the Fredins.
The gravel pit has been owned by the Fredin family on their plot of land and stood unused since the 1950s, but its exploitation had begun in 1960. In 1963, the government prohibited the extraction of gravel without permit and ordered the family to stop work in accordance with the Nature Protection Act 1952. However, the family received permission several times to extend the extraction of gravel and even an exception to build a quay with shiploading equipment near the seashore, and had to completely cease operation by 1987. Fredin filed a lawsuit for full compensation for the damage that brought such a prohibition and its cancellation because, in their opinion, the state violated their property rights following Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. However, the court ruled that the state acted due to the current legislation, but obligated it to pay partial compensation for legal costs and moral damages.
The basis of this case is the Nature Protection Act 1952 and 1964 Act, which prohibits harm to nature, including the extraction of minerals that pollute the environment. Infringement of these acts is also a violation of international environmental law, since by contaminating nature in the process of mining without permission, an individual offends the right of others to a clean environment. The act that formed the basis of the charge is Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which guarantees any person the right to own and dispose of the property. However, an important feature is that the start of the exploitation of the gravel pit began in 1960, 8 years after the adoption of the Nature Protection Act. Consequently, the Fredins should have been aware of the possible consequences starting the extraction of gravel, so the damage they suffered is a consequence of their actions. However, the court found that specific points and rules of the act were inaccurate, which led to a partial payment of moral compensation to the Fredins.
Moreover, applicants claim that the state violated article 14 of the Convention about the non-discrimination right, since they were the only independent contractors in the region, and their case was the only one in Sweden. They also note that the state did not prohibit the extraction of gravel to other companies that were in the same conditions. However, the court ruled that there are no credible pieces of evidence that would demonstrate the similarity of Fredin’s situation with other companies; therefore, the fact of discrimination cannot be confirmed.
The court also examined Fredin’s statement about a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provides the right of a person to trial before the prohibition imposing. The court upheld this statement, since the dispute took place between the state and Fredin, but no court proceedings or procedures were held before the ban on the operation of the gravel pit was enforced. Thus, the state was obliged to reimburse the part of the legal costs by paying 75,000 kronor.
In conclusion, the case of Fredin v. Sweden is an example of a trial in which the applicants had a legal right to charges, but their accusations had only partial results. The main reason for the loss of the Fredins is weak legal arguments and ignorance of the details of the laws that led to the imposition of the ban in the first place. Therefore, the main lesson of this case is the need to study and know the laws before committing any act and care about rights of other people.