Article 6 provided the basis for a complaint that the applicants had been denied a remedy for threatened environmental harm. The applicants’ claim was directly concerned with their ability to use the water in their well for drinking purposes. Such ability was one facet of their right of property. The entitlement in issue was thus a ‘civil right’ and thus Article 6-1 was applicable. At the material time it was not possible for the applicants to have the relevant decision reviewed by a court. The applicability of Article 6 was based on the Court's finding that “the applicants could arguably maintain that they were entitled under Swedish law to protection against the water in their well-being polluted as a result of VAFAB's [the polluting company] activities on the dump.” Accordingly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6-1 in their case.