Compensation in the Expropriation Act

Abstract: The purpose with this work is to investigate how much effect the value decrease following the expropriation has on the total compensation for acquisitions on expropriation grounds and the extent of acquisitions of entire properties where value decrease may have occurred. The value decrease originates from the business, which expropriation is made for. This value decrease is compensated in the influence rule in the Expropriation Act (1972:719). The reason value decrease has an impact on the total compensation is because no surcharge is given the compensation in the influence rule. While it three years ago was instituted a surcharge of 25% in the Expropriation Act (EA) for the compensation for the property's value at the acquisition date. The strongest reason for the introduction of the surcharge was to strengthen the property rights of property owners when their properties are acquired on expropriations purposes. But the difference in surcharge means that the compensation will be inconsistent, depending on whether the value decrease has occurred or not. The arising of the difference in total compensation has emerged from studies of the EA and its propositions. Furthermore, it emerges from the Environmental Code that properties acquired in its entirety as a result of environmental damage, i.e. activities that lead to damage to other properties, will also be compensated in the influence rule and thus no surcharge will be given. To investigate how many properties that have been acquired on expropriation purposes, where damage may have occurred and is compensated through the influence rule, there has been an empirical study of Trafikverket´s property acquisitions. Furthermore, Malmberget has been included in efforts to highlight the extent of land acquisition where properties may be subject to damages under the influence rule. In the empirical study, 166 properties acquired by Trafikverket in the past three years have been studied. 44 of these have been acquired for the construction of roads or railroads, whose activities may have resulted in a value decrease on the properties acquired. 122 properties were probably acquired as a result of environmental damage. Results from the study show that the influence rule might have been used in several acquisitions made in recent years and therefore had an impact on the total compensation. As the full compensation does not get the surcharge of 25%, the compensation as mentioned earlier becomes inconsistent. This does not seem reasonable when the motive behind the proposition was to strengthen the ownership. Thus, it should be the loss of the owner right that gets compensated and therefore the compensation through the influence rule also should be given the surcharge.