Mettinge (Sweden) País/Territorio Suecia Tipo de la corte Nacional - corte superior Fecha Jun 27, 2001 Fuente UNEP, InforMEA Nombre del tribunal Miljööverdomstolen Número de referencia MÖD 2001:29 Idioma Sueco Materia Cuestiones jurídicas, Medio ambiente gen. Palabra clave Legitimación para actuar Resumen In order to build a house in the archipelago, a property owner applied for an exemption from a provision in the Environmental Code that prohibits the erection of new buildings in shore protection areas in order to build a house in such an area. The house-owner was granted an exemption and the decision was appealed by a neighbour. The Environmental Court found that the neighbour did not have a right to appeal as the decision did not concern him and thus dismissed the appeal. This judgement was then appealed by the neighbour to the Environmental Court of Appeal. The neighbour claimed that the exemption would have a negative impact on his interests, e.g. the view from his house would be ruined, he would have greater difficulty accessing the shore, his property would lose value, etc. He also put forward a number of public interests that he argued should give him the right to appeal the decision. The Environmental Court of Appeal stated that even though a generous interpretation of “the public concerned” is one of the objectives of the Environmental Code, the assessment of the question of standing in a certain case shall be based on what legal interest is meant to be protected by each specific substantial provision of the Code. The Court then went on to conclude that the provisions protecting shoreline areas are aimed at assuring public access to outdoor life and maintaining good living conditions for plant and animal species, and not at protecting private interests. As these provisions are not intended to protect neighbours private interests, a neighbor does not have the right to appeal a decision concerning an exemption from those provisions. The fact that the neighbour also had referred to public interests did not, according to the Court, have any relevance to its decision making on the issue of standing.