CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 23 avril 1987

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  In the Poiss case*,   _______________ *   Note by the Registrar: The case is numbered 17/1986/115/163.   The    second figure indicates the year in which the case was referred to the    Court and the first figure its place on the list of cases referred in    that year; the last two figures indicate, respectively, the case's    order on the list of cases and of originating applications (to the    Commission) referred to the Court since its creation. _______________   The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") and the relevant provisions of the Rules of Court, as a Chamber consisting of the following judges:           Mr. R. Ryssdal, President,         Mr. G. Lagergren,         Mr. F. Gölcükü,         Mr. F. Matscher,         Mr. B. Walsh,         Sir Vincent Evans,         Mr. C. Russo,   and also of Mr. M.-A. Eissen, Registrar, and Mr. H. Petzold, Deputy Registrar,   Having deliberated in private on 24 October 1986 and 24 March 1987,   Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:   PROCEDURE   1.       The present case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 14 May 1986, within the three-month period laid down in Article 32 § 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention.   It originated in an application (no. 9816/82) against the Republic of Austria, lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by Mr. Leopold Poiss and his children, Josef and Anna, who are all Austrian nationals, in 1982.   The Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby the Republic of Austria recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46).   The purpose of the request was to obtain a decision from the Court as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).   2.       In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 § 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicants - with the exception of Leopold Poiss, who had died on 30 April 1984 - stated that they wished to take part in the proceedings pending before the Court and designated the lawyer who would represent them (Rule 30).   On 28 May 1986, the President of the Court gave the said lawyer leave to use the German language (Rule 27 § 3).   3.       On 5 June 1986, the President of the Court referred the case to the Chamber constituted to consider the case of Ettl and Others (Rule 21 § 6).   This included ex officio Mr. F. Matscher, the elected judge of Austrian nationality (Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr. R. Ryssdal, the President of the Court (Rule 21 § 3 (b)).   The other five members, chosen by lot on 25 October 1985, were Mr. D. Evrigenis, Mr. F. Gölcüklü, Mr. B. Walsh, Sir Vincent Evans and Mr. C. Russo (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 § 4) (art. 43).   Subsequently, Mr. Evrigenis died, and his place was taken by Mr. G. Lagergren, substitute judge (Rules 22 § 1 and 24 § 1).   4.       Having assumed the office of President of the Chamber (Rule 21 § 5), Mr. Ryssdal consulted - through the Deputy Registrar - the Agent of the Austrian Government ("the Government"), the Commission's Delegate and the applicants' lawyer on the need for a written procedure (Rule 37 § 1).   On 30 June 1986, he directed that the said Agent and lawyer should each have until 15 August 1986 to submit memorials, and that the Delegate should be entitled to file a memorial in reply within two months of the day on which the last filed of these memorials was forwarded to him by the Registrar.   The applicants' memorial reached the registry on 18 August.   The Permanent Representative of Austria to the Council of Europe and the Secretary to the Commission informed the Registrar, on 21 August and 22 September respectively, that the Government and the Commission's Delegate did not intend to submit any observations in writing.   5.     Having consulted - through the Deputy Registrar - the Agent of the Government, the Commission's Delegate and the applicants' lawyer, the President directed on 25 September that the oral proceedings should commence on 20 or 21 October 1986, as soon as the hearing in the Erkner and Hofauer case had ended (Rule 38).   On 6 October, the Commission provided the Registrar with a number of documents he had asked for on the President's instructions.   6.       The hearing was held in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 20 October.   The Court had held a preparatory meeting immediately beforehand.   There appeared before the Court:   - for the Government     Mr. H. Türk, Legal Adviser, Ministry of                 Foreign Affairs,                         Agent,     Mr. D. Okresek, Federal Chancellery,     Mr. D. Hunger, Federal Ministry of Agriculture                 and Forestry,                            Advisers;   - for the Commission     Mr. F. Ermacora,                                       Delegate;   - for the applicants     Mr. E. Proksch, Rechtsanwalt,                          Counsel.   The Court heard addresses by the above, as well as their replies to its questions.   The applicants produced documents during the hearing.   On 30 December 1986, Mr. Proksch filed with the registry a document giving further particulars of one point in his clients' claim for just satisfaction.   AS TO THE FACTS   7.       The applicants, Leopold Poiss - who died on 30 April 1984 - and his children, Josef and Anna, are Austrian farmers, resident at Palterndorf, Lower Austria.   They complain of consolidation proceedings (Zusammenlegungsverfahren) taken in respect of their land.   I.       The circumstances of the case   1.   The consolidation measures   8.       On 13 September 1965, the Lower Austrian District Agricultural Authority (Agrarbezirksbehörde - "the District Authority") issued a consolidation plan it had adopted on 1 September.   It had already ordered, on 22 April 1963, the provisional transfer of the parcels of land concerned.   The scheme affected 530 people, including 428 owners of agricultural land.   The applicants considered that their land was superior in quality to the plots offered in compensation and they accordingly appealed against the plan between 27 and 30 September 1965, but the Provincial Land Reform Board (Landesagrarsenat - "the Provincial Board") upheld it on 9 July 1968.   The applicants appealed within two weeks against the Provicial Board's decision, claiming specifically that some of their original land - vineyards located near the farmhouse (Hausweingärten) - should have been scheduled as building land.   On 5 May 1971, their appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Land Reform Board (Oberster Agrarsenat - "the Supreme Board"), which declared that the land in question was designated in the Palterndorf municipal zoning plan as being for agricultural use.   This decision was served on 8 September 1971.   The applicants then made an application to the Constitutional Court, which dismissed their appeal on 24 February 1972; the judgment was served on them on 23 May.   2.   The reopening of the proceedings   9.       On 7 September 1971, i.e. the day before the Supreme Board's decision was served on the applicants, the municipal planning authority had adopted (but not published) a provisional zoning plan in which the applicants' vineyards were designated as building land.   The mayor of Palterndorf-Dobermannsdorf confirmed this in a letter to the Poiss family on 5 September 1974.   (a)   The Supreme Board's new decision   10.      The next day, the applicants applied to the Supreme Board to have the proceedings reopened.   Relying on section 69(1)(b) of the General Administrative Procedure Act (Allgemeines Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz), they argued in particular that as they had not received confirmation of the existence of a provisional zoning plan until the previous day, they had not been able to cite the redesignation of their land in the earlier proceedings.   The Supreme Board granted their application on 1 October 1975. Reconsidering the original appeal, it held that, as building land, the land in question was of special value within the meaning of section 18(1) of the Lower Austrian Agricultural Land Planning Act of 1975 (Flurverfassungslandesgesetz - see paragraphs 26 and 33 below) and must therefore be left in the hands of its former owners or else be replaced by land of equal value.   This decision was served on the applicants on 16 December.   (b)   The first phase of the reopened proceedings   11.      Since the consolidation plan would have to undergo an alteration that would automatically affect the interests of the other parties to the redistribution procedure, the matter was remitted to the District Authority for further investigation and a fresh decision.   On 5 April 1976, the District Authority refused to acknowledge that the land in dispute was land of special value, since the provincial municipal zoning plan of 7 September 1971 had not been finally approved by the appropriate provincial authority.   It added that the land could not be regarded as natural building land, since it was some distance away from the village's residential zone.   12.      The Poiss family appealed to the Provincial Land Reform Board on 3 May 1976, but the latter failed to give a decision within the six months stipulated in section 73(1) of the General Administrative Procedure Act, and the applicants accordingly applied to the Supreme Land Reform Board on 24 January 1977 to assume jurisdiction under section 73(2) (see paragraph 41 below).   On 6 July 1977, the Supreme Land Reform Board allowed both the application for transfer of jurisdiction and the appeal.   It remitted the case to the District Authority, ruling that the latter was bound by the Supreme Board's opinion of 1 October 1975.   This decision was served on the applicants on 30 August 1977.   (c)   The second phase of the reopened proceedings   13.      The District Authority once again refused to comply, however: it decided on 23 August 1978 to postpone a decision until the final zoning plan had been adopted.   It held that the provisional plan had still not been approved by the appropriate provincial authorities; that there were serious doubts as to whether the land in question could be classified as building land; and that to take a decision in the absence of a plan would be contrary to the Federal Constitution (Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz) and the case-law of the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof).   14.      On an appeal by the applicants on 8 September 1978, the Provincial Land Reform Board quashed this decision on 6 April 1979. It found that a final zoning plan was no longer an essential prerequisite for settling the dispute, since under section 113(2) of the Agricultural Land Planning Act (see paragraph 26 below) - as amended on 23 February 1979 - the provisions of consolidation plans had the same effect as regional-planning decisions.   Local planning decisions must not conflict with (regional) consolidation plans, and this meant that the municipal authorities were not entitled to obstruct application of the consolidation plan for Palterndorf- Dobermannsdorf; nor could the local planning authorities classify as building land any zones shown in the consolidation plan as farming land.   In short, there was no reason why a determination of the merits of the applicants' claim should be postponed.   This decision was served on the applicants on 13 April 1979.   15.      Subsequently, the Poiss family applied to the District Authority under section 18(4) of the Agricultural Land Planning Act (see paragraph 33 below) with a view to having their land recognised as being of special value.   No decision was given on this application.   16.      The applicants also applied - on 2 May 1979 - to the Supreme Board to have the Provincial Board's decision set aside.   This application was refused on 7 May 1980.   The Supreme Board ruled that the District Authority must itself take a speedy decision.   It held that the special value of the Poiss family's land could not be disputed, although it was not designated as building land in any final zoning plan.   Several houses had been built in the same zone in the meantime, and the District Authority was still bound by the Supreme Board's earlier decision.   This decision was served on the applicants on 23 May 1980.   3.   Proceedings concerning the authorities' failure to act   (a)   The first set of proceedings   17.      The District Authority took no further decision within the statutory six-month period (see paragraph 41 below), and on 21 January 1981 the applicants accordingly applied to the Provincial Board.   On 29 May 1981, the Provincial Board refused to entertain the application.   It found that the District Authority had taken steps to satisfy the Poiss family's claims but had not so far succeeded in securing a final settlement.   The delay was due neither to the District Authority nor to the applicants.   The other parties having received their compensation in land in 1965, the original intention had been to compensate the applicants with a parcel of municipally owned land, but insuperable difficulties (unüberwindliche Hindernisse) had arisen because the parcel in question was not of the right size. Although this phase of the proceedings had lasted longer than six months, this was not unreasonable in relation to the length of the proceedings as a whole, which had begun in 1965.   Having regard to all the circumstances, the conditions for a transfer of jurisdiction had not been met.   This decision was served on the applicants on 2 July 1981.   18.      The applicants appealed to the Supreme Board on 13 July 1981, claiming that there had been no insuperable difficulties, but the Supreme Board upheld the Provincial Board's decision on 4 November 1981.   It ruled that the District Authority's conduct had not been unreasonable in the circumstances of the case.   This decision was served on the applicants on 16 December.   19.    The applicants appealed to the Administrative Court on 25 January 1982.   Their contention was that the District Authority's endeavours to reach an agreement with the municipal authority had not been sufficient to discharge its obligation to provide a basis for a legal decision on their claims for compensation; and that in view of the length of the earlier proceedings and their slowness, there was no justification for further postponing such a decision.   On 15 June 1982, the Administrative Court allowed the appeal: having regard to section 73 of the General Administrative Procedure Act (see paragraph 41 below), the application for a decision had been wrongly refused; as for the steps taken by the District Authority, they were insufficient to justify the delay.   This judgment was served on the applicants on 3 August.   (b)   The second set of proceedings   20.      On 3 November 1982, the Supreme Board quashed the Provincial Board's decision of 29 May 1981 (see paragraph 17 above) for the reasons given by the Administrative Court, and ruled that the Provincial Board accordingly now had jurisdiction to determine the merits.   The applicants were served with this decision on 10 December.   The Provincial Board failed to give a decision within the statutory six-month period (see paragraph 41 below).   It merely inspected the land in the spring of 1983 and subsequently held several meetings with the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement.   21.    On 28 September 1983, the Poiss family applied to the Supreme Board to assume jurisdiction under section 73 of the General Administrative Procedure Act (see paragraph 41 below).   On 7 December 1983, the Supreme Board granted the application; its decision was served on the applicants on 23 January 1984.   The Supreme Board held a hearing on 6 March 1985 and on the same day drew up a new consolidation plan, which was communicated to the applicants on 30 October 1985.   The Board confirmed the earlier consolidation measures and allotted the applicants some building land made available by the municipality of Palterndorf-Dobermannsdorf; it rejected the complaint that this land did not compensate for the land of special value that the applicants had lost; since the law was silent on the point, the Board also refused to award the applicants any financial compensation for the damage caused to them by the authorities' having throughout the proceedings withheld the compensatory parcels of land lawfully due to them.   22.    On 11 December 1985, the applicants appealed to the Administrative Court.   In a judgment delivered on 15 July 1986 and served on 9 October, the Administrative Court quashed the Supreme Board's decision as regards the land in compensation, on grounds of procedural irregularity, but dismissed it as to the rest, in particular - for want of any statutory basis - as regards the claim for financial compensation.   No new consolidation plan for Palternsdorf has been adopted to date (24 March 1987).   II.      The relevant legislation   1.   In general   23.      Powers in respect of land reform in Austria are divided between the Federation and the Länder.   Legislation establishing general principles is the responsibility of the Federation, while implementing legislation and law enforcement is the responsibility of the Länder (Article 12(1)(3) of the Federal Constitution).   By Article 12(2) of the Federal Constitution, decisions at final instance and at Land level are taken by boards consisting of a "chairman, judges, civil servants and experts"; "the board which decides at final instance shall be set up within the appropriate Federal Ministry". "Provision shall be made in a Federal Act for the organisation, functions and procedure of the boards and for the principles for organising the other authorities concerned with land reform".   This Act must provide that the executive shall not be able to set aside or vary the boards' decisions; it cannot exclude appeals to the provincial board against decisions by the authority of first instance.   24.    Within this constitutional framework the Federal Parliament has passed three Acts dealing with the following matters:   (i)   the legal principles applicable to land reform (Federal Agricultural Land Planning (General Principles) Act (Flurverfassungs- Grundsatzgesetz 1951), as amended in 1977);   (ii)   the organisation of the land reform boards and the principles for organising the authorities of first instance (Federal Agricultural Authorities Act (Agrarbehördengesetz 1950), as amended in 1974);   (iii)   proceedings before agricultural authorities (Federal Agricultural Proceedings Act (Agrarverfahrensgesetz 1950), which refers to the General Administrative Procedure Act).   2.   The consolidation of agricultural land   25.      The basic rules applying to the consolidation of agricultural land are embodied in the Federal Agricultural Land Planning (General Principles) Act.   The Länder have regulated the matters for which they are made responsible under the Federal legislation in provincial agricultural land planning Acts (Flurverfassungs-Landesgesetze).   26.      In Lower Austria, consolidation is governed by the Agricultural Land Planning Act 1975 ("the Provincial Act").   This replaced an Act of 1934 and was itself amended in certain respects by an Act of 23 February 1979.   27.      The purpose of consolidation is to improve infrastructure and the pattern of agricultural holdings in a given area.   It comprises communal measures and facilities and redistribution of land.   The operation takes place in the following stages:   - the initial proceedings and determination of the consolidation area (sections 2 and 3 of the Provincial Act);   - ascertainment of the occupiers of the land in question and assessment of its value (sections 10-12);   - planning of communal measures and facilities (sections 13-15);   - provisional transfer of land, where appropriate (section 22);   - adoption of the consolidation plan (sections 16-21).   Normally, none of these stages may begin until the previous stage has been terminated with a final decision.   There are, however, some exceptions to this rule, particularly as regards the valuation, which must be made at an early stage in the proceedings, in accordance with precise statutory criteria (section 11 of the Provincial Act).   Any valuation may, however, be appealed against until such time as there is a final consolidation plan (section 12(5) of the Provincial Act and section 68(4) of the General Administrative Procedure Act).   28.    The initial proceedings, which are instituted officially, serve to determine the consolidation area, which, in addition to farmland and forest, may include land required for communal facilities.   The owners form an association (Zusammenlegungsgemeinschaft), which is a corporate body governed by public law.   The institution of proceedings means that land use is restricted until the proceedings are concluded; any change in use must be approved by the appropriate agricultural authority.   29.      The agricultural authority then ascertains who are the occupiers of the land and assesses its value.   Its decision (Besitzstandsausweis und Bewertungsplan) determines the value of the land in accordance with precise statutory criteria.   Each of the landowners involved may - until such time as the consolidation plan comes into force - challenge the valuation not only of his own land but also of the land of the others.   30.    Communal measures (e.g. soil improvement, alterations to terrain or landscape) and communal facilities (e.g. private roads, bridges, ditches, drainage and irrigation) are ordered where they are needed to provide suitable access to or permit effective cultivation of the compensatory parcels of land, or if they otherwise assist the consolidation scheme in the interests of the majority of the parties concerned.   Alteration, relocation or removal of existing facilities may also be ordered.   All these matters are embodied in a specific decision by the relevant authority (Plan der gemeinsamen Massnahmen und Anlagen), which must also settle the question of costs, usually shared by the landowners.   31.    The relevant agricultural authority takes these last three decisions (see paragraphs 29-30 above) one after the other or simultaneously; it may take them all together when it adopts the consolidation plan (sections 12(4), 14(3) and 21 of the Provincial Act).   32.      Under section 22 of the Provincial Act, land may be provisionally transferred if at least two-thirds of the owners agree and if:   - the communal-facilities plan has been adopted; and   - a draft consolidation plan has been prepared and compensatory parcels have been marked out.   The main purpose of provisional transfer is to ensure that the consolidation area is rationally cultivated during the interim period. The land transferred becomes the property of the transferees subject to a condition subsequent: it reverts if the allocation is not confirmed in the final consolidation plan (Eigentum unter auflösender Bedingung).   33.      At the end of the proceedings, the agricultural authority adopts the consolidation plan (Zusammenlegungsplan).   Since 1977, this has had to be published within three years of the final decision to provisionally transfer parcels of land (section 7a(4) of the Federal Agricultural Proceedings Act).   The adoption of the plan is an administrative act which is supported by maps and other technical data, and whose main function is to determine the compensation due to the landowners who are parties to the proceedings.   The Provincial Act includes the following regulations on this matter:   - "Any party whose land is included in the consolidation scheme ... shall be entitled to compensation ... in land which shall as far as possible be of equal value" (section 17(1));   - "The value of the land offered in exchange must correspond fairly closely to the amount of compensation due.   Discrepancies of up to 5% are permissible ....   Such discrepancies may be made good by cash payments" (section 17(7));   - "Both the type and the agricultural value of the land awarded to a party in compensation must correspond as closely as possible to those of the land belonging to him which has been included in the consolidation scheme.   It must enable him to secure better, or at least the same, results without his making any substantial change to the nature of his farm or to its equipment ..." (section 17(8)).   Section 18 of the Act has the following to say about land of special value:   "Land which has special value because it is particularly suited to the growing of specific crops or on account of a non-agricultural use shall be restored to its owner or replaced by equivalent plots of land, having due regard to their market value and the requirements of the holding concerned.   Such land includes:   (a)   land which has been built on or for which planning permission has been granted;   (b)   land designated as building land in a regional or simplified regional zoning plan under the Lower Austrian Regional Planning Act of 1976; ...".   Since 1979, the Provincial Act has stipulated that the parties must secure recognition of their land's special value before the valuation schedule has been adopted (section 18(4)).   The provincial legislation does not provide for any financial compensation for damage which landowners who have successfully challenged the lawfulness of compensation received in land suffer before a final consolidation plan comes into force.   3.   The agricultural authorities   34.      The first-instance authority in Lower Austria is the District Agricultural Authority, which is a purely administrative body.   The higher authorities are the Provincial Board, established at the Office of the Provincial Government (Amt der Landesregierung), and the Supreme Board, set up within the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft).   Decisions (Bescheide) of the District Authority can be challenged by way of appeal (Berufung) to the Provincial Board, whose decision is final except where it has varied the decision in question and where the dispute concerns one of the issues listed in section 7(2) of the Federal Agricultural Authorities Act, such as the lawfulness of the compensation in the event of land consolidation; in such cases an appeal lies to the Supreme Board.   In Austrian law the land reform boards are classified as boards whose members include judges (Kollegialbehörden mit richterlichem Einschlag) and which constitute a kind of "specialised administrative tribunal".   35.      The Provincial Board has eight members, all appointed by the Government of the Land (section 5(2) and (4) of the Federal Agricultural Authorities Act), viz.:   - one Land civil servant, who is legally qualified (rechtskundig), and acts as chairman;   - three judges;   - a legally qualified Land civil servant with experience in land reform, who acts as rapporteur;   - a senior Land civil servant (Landesbeamter des höheren Dienstes) with experience in agronomic matters;   - a senior Land civil servant with experience in forestry matters; and   - an agricultural expert within the meaning of section 52 of the General Administrative Procedure Act.   36.      The Supreme Board likewise has eight members (section 6(2) and (4) of the Federal Agricultural Authorities Act), viz.:   - one legally qualified senior civil servant from the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, who acts as chairman;   - three members of the Supreme Court;   - a legally qualified senior civil servant from the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry with experience in land reform, who acts as rapporteur;   - a senior civil servant from the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry with experience in agronomic matters;   - a senior civil servant from the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry with experience in forestry matters; and   - an agricultural expert within the meaning of section 52 of the General Administrative Procedure Act.   The judicial members are appointed by the Federal Minister of Justice, and the others by the Federal Minister of Agriculture and Forestry.   37.      Section 52 of the General Administrative Procedure Act, which is referred to in sections 5(2) and 6(2) of the Federal Agricultural Authorities Act, provides:   "1.   If it becomes necessary to take expert evidence, the authority shall rely on the services of the official experts (Amtssachverständige) attached to it or put at its disposal.   2.   However, by way of exception, the authority may also consult other suitable persons sworn as experts if no official experts are available or if it becomes necessary having regard to the particular circumstances of the case.   ..."   38.      Members of land reform boards are appointed for five years and may be re-appointed (section 9(1) of the Federal Agricultural Authorities Act).   They cease to hold office before the expiry of their term if, inter alia, they no longer satisfy the conditions of appointment (section 9(2)).   Any member may, at his own request, be relieved of his office on health grounds or for professional reasons which prevent him from properly discharging his duties (section 9(3)). If a judicial or civil-servant member is suspended from duty by decision of a disciplinary tribunal, he shall automatically also be suspended from duty as a member of a land reform board (section 9(4)).   39.      The members of these boards discharge their duties independently and are not subject to any instructions (section 8 of the Federal Agricultural Authorities Act and Article 20(2) of the Federal Constitution).   The executive can neither set aside nor vary their decisions (section 8 of the Federal Act and Article 12(2) of the Federal Constitution - see paragraph 23 above).   The decisions can be challenged in the Administrative Court (section 8 of the Federal Act).   40.    The pattern of organisation described above was the outcome of a legislative change in 1974 following a judgment of the Constitutional Court in the same year.   In the Constitutional Court's view, the land reform boards as constituted under the 1950 Act could not be regarded as being independent and impartial tribunals within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention - their members included at that time a Minister from the Federal Government (in the case of the Supreme Board) or the relevant provincial government (in the case of the provincial boards), and the other members could be dismissed at any time by the relevant authorities (judgment of 19 March 1974, Erkenntnisse und Beschlüsse des   Verfassungsgerichtshofes, 1974, vol. 39, no. 7284, pp. 148-161).   The new legislation excluded from the boards anyone who was a member of either the Federal Government or a provincial government, introduced provisions governing the term of office and the dismissal of members and provided for appeal to the Administrative Court (sections 5(2), 6(2), 8 and 9 of the Federal Agricultural Authorities Act 1974).   4.   Procedure before land reform boards   41.      Procedure before the land reform boards is governed by the Federal Agricultural Proceedings Act (see paragraph 24 above), section 1 of which stipulates that the General Administrative Procedure Act shall apply - except for one section of no relevance in the instant case - subject to the variations and additional provisions made in the Federal Act.   The boards are responsible for the conduct of the proceedings (section 39 of the General Administrative Procedure Act).   By section 9(1) and (2) of the Federal Act, the boards take their decisions after a private hearing.   This is normally attended by the parties, who may consult the file (section 17 of the General Administrative Procedure Act).   The parties may appear in person or be represented (section 9(3) of the Federal Act).   The chairman may call witnesses and, in order to obtain information, civil servants who contributed to the decision at first instance and to the preparation of the decision (section 9(5)).   Hearings begin with a report by the rapporteur; the board then clarifies the subject-matter of the dispute by hearing evidence from the parties and the witnesses and by looking at the legal and economic situation in detail (eingehend) (section 10(2)).   It proceeds on the basis of the facts found by the authority below, but can also order further investigations to be made by that authority or by one or more of its own members (section 10(1)).   The parties must be able to acquaint themselves with the findings made as a result of the taking of evidence (Beweisaufnahme) and to submit their comments (section 45(3) of the General Administrative Procedure Act).   The boards deliberate and vote without the parties being present. After discussing the outcome of the hearing, the rapporteur submits conclusions (Antrag); anyone wishing to submit different conclusions (Gegen- und Abänderungsanträge) must give reasons for them (section 11(1) of the Federal Act).   The chairman determines the order in which the conclusions are put to the vote (ibid).   The rapporteur votes first, followed by the judges and then the other members, including the chairman, who votes last and has a casting vote if the votes are divided equally (section 11(2)).   If an appeal is brought - within the prescribed two weeks (section 7(3)) - and is held to be admissible, the appropriate board will, if it considers the findings of fact so defective that a new hearing appears to be unavoidable, quash the disputed decision and remit the case to the authority below; otherwise it will determine the merits of the case itself (section 66(2) and (4) of the General Administrative Procedure Act).   It may vary either the operative part of the impugned decision or the reasons given for the decision (section 66(4)).   Boards must determine cases without undue delay (ohne unnötigen Aufschub) and in any event not later than six months after an application has been made to them (section 73(1)).   If the board's decision (Erkenntnis) is not notified to the parties concerned within that time, the parties may apply to the higher authority, which will thereupon acquire jurisdiction to determine the merits (section 73(2)).   If the latter authority fails to give a decision, jurisdiction passes - on an application by the interested party - to the Administrative Court (Article 132 of the Federal Constitution and section 27 of the Administrative Court Act).   Reasons must be given for the boards' decisions, which must summarise clearly (klar und übersichtlich) the findings of the investigation, the assessment of the evidence, and the ruling - on the basis of that material - on the legal issues arising in the case (sections 58(2) and 60 of the General Administrative Procedure Act).   Decisions are sent to the parties; a board may, however, choose to give its decision forthwith (section 13 of the Federal Act).   5.   Appeals to the Constitutional Court and the Administrative Court   42.      The decisions of land reform boards can be challenged in the Constitutional Court.   The latter reviews whether there has been any infringement of an applicant's rights under the Constitution and whether any decree (Verordnung) unauthorised by statute law or any unconstitutional statute or international treaty unlawful (rechtswidrig) under Austrian law has been applied (Article 144 of the Federal Constitution).   43.      As an exception to the general rule laid down in Article 133(4) of the Federal Constitution, section 8 of the Federal Agricultural Authorities Act provides for an appeal to the Administrative Court against the decisions of land reform boards. Application may be made to the Administrative Court before or after an application to the Constitutional Court, which, if it rules that there has been no infringement of the right relied on in the application to it, will refer the case to the Administrative Court if the applicant so requests (Article 144(3) of the Federal Constitution).   Under Article 130 of the Federal Constitution, the Administrative Court hears applications alleging the unlawfulness of an administrative act (Bescheid) or coercion (Befehls- und Zwangsgewalt) against an individual or the breach by the relevant authority of its duty to take a decision.   It also hears appeals against decisions by boards whose members include judges - such as the land reform boards - where such jurisdiction is conferred on it by statute (see paragraphs 34 and 40 above).   If the Administrative Court does not dismiss the application as unfounded, it will quash the decision appealed against; it determines the merits itself only where the relevant authority has failed in its duty to give a decision (section 42(1) of the Administrative Court Act (Verwaltungsgerichtshofgesetz)).   When reviewing the lawfulness of an administrative act or of a decision by a board whose members include judges, the Court does so on the basis of the facts found by the authority concerned and solely in the light of the complaints made, unless the authority has acted ultra vires or procedural requirements have not been complied with (section 41 of the Administrative Court Act).   In this connection the Act specifically provides that the Court shall quash the act appealed against - on grounds of procedural irregularity - where the facts the administrative authority held to have been established are contradicted in a vital respect by the file, or where they are incomplete in such a respect or where there has been a failure to comply with rules which, if they had been correctly applied, might have resulted in a different decision (section 42(2)(3) of the aforementioned Act).   If, during the consideration of a case, grounds emerge which were previously unknown to the parties, the latter must be given an opportunity to be heard by the court, which must adjourn the proceedings if necessary (section 41(1) of the Act).   Procedure consists mainly in an exchange of pleadings (section 36), followed (except in certain cases specified in the Act) by a hearing inter partes, which will normally be held in public (sections 39 and 40).   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION   44.      In their application of 25 January 1982 to the Commission (no. 9816/82), Leopold, Josef and Anna Poiss claimed that they had not had a hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal as required by Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.   They also complained that their right of property under Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) had been infringed.   45.    The Commission declared the application admissible on 9 March 1984.   In its report of 24 January 1986 (made under Article 31 of the Convention) (art. 31), it reached the conclusion that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention (unanimously) and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) (eleven votes to one).   The full text of the Commission's opinion and of the two separate opinions contained in the report is annexed to this judgment.   FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT   46.      At the hearing on 20 October 1986, the Government requested the Court "to hold that in the present case Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) have not been violated, and that therefore the facts of the case do not disclose any breach of the requirements of the Convention by the Republic of Austria".   In his memorial of 18 August 1986, counsel for the applicants asked the Court, inter alia, to concur with the Commission and find that the Republic of Austria had been responsible for a human-rights violation.   AS TO THE LAW   I.       ALLEGED BREACH OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 (art. 6-1) OF THE CONVENTION   47.    The applicants claimed that their case had not been heard within a "reasonable time"; that the land reform boards sat in private and were not independent and impartial tribunals.   They relied on Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, which provides:   "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.   ..."   The Government maintained that there had been no breach.   For its part, the Commission considered that the length of the proceedings had exceeded a "reasonable time"; it did not give an opinion on the applicants' other submissions.   1.   Applicability of Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1)   48.      The Palterndorf agricultural consolidation plans concerned, inter alia, land belonging to the Poiss family, which was taken from them in exchange for land previously belonging to other owners.   The applicants contested - and continue to contest - the lawfulness of the compensation obtained.   Any decision - whether favourable or unfavourable - by the authorities dealing with the matter consequently affected, affects or will in the future affect their property rights. The outcome of the proceedings complained of is accordingly "decisive for private rights and obligations" (see the Ringeisen judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 39, § 94, and the Sramek judgment of 22 October 1984, Series A no. 84, p. 17, § 34), so that Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1) applies in the instant case; the Government, moreover, conceded this.   2.   Compliance with Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1)   (a)   "Independent and impartial tribunal" - "public hearing"   49.      Before the Court, the applicants cited the fact that the hearings before the land reform boards were not held in public, and they contended that the boards were not independent and impartial.   As regards the latter contention, they relied on the organisational charts of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Office of the Provincial Government of Lower Austria to point to the existence of hierarchical links between the civil-servant members, the participation in the vote by civil servants responsible for preparing expert opinions, and the short term of office (five years).   These were new complaints.   They were not raised as such before the Commission and were not based on the facts as found by the Commission within the framework fixed by its decision on admissibility.   That being so, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain them (see in particular, mutatis mutandis, the Bozano judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 111, p. 27, § 62).   (b)   "Reasonable time"   (i)   Period to be considered   50.      In civil proceedings, the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1) normally begins to run from the moment the action was instituted before the "tribunal" (see, as the most recent authority, the Deumeland judgment of 29 May 1986, Series A no. 100, p. 26, § 77), and in the instant case there is nothing in the evidence adduced which would lead the Court to hold that the dispute ("contestation") arose at any earlier date.   As to the close of the period to be taken into consideration, the Government argued before the Commission that the determination of civil rights as mentioned in Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1) does not necessarily imply a final judgment.   They maintained that there had been an initial provisional determination of the parcels of land to be allotted to the applicants and then an adjustment whereby the applicants became entitled to better compensation.   Like the Commission, the Court is not convinced by this argument.   It has consistently held in relation to the application of Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1) that the period whose reasonableness falls to be reviewed takes in the entirety of the proceedings in issue, including any appeals (see, inter alia, the above-mentioned Deumeland judgment, ibid.).   That period accordingly extends right up to the decision which disposes of the dispute ("contestation") (see the Guincho judgment of 10 July 1984, Series A no. 81, p. 13, § 29).   51.      In the instant case there were two phases in the proceedings.   52.    The first phase began between 27 and 30 September 1965 when the applicants appealed against the consolidation plan of 1 September 1965 (see paragraph 8 above).   It ended on 23 May 1972, when they received notification of the Constitutional Court's judgment of 24 February (ibid.).   The proceedings in the Constitutional Court are material, because although that Court had no jurisdiction to rule on the merits, its decision was nonetheless capable of affecting the outcome of the dispute (see the above-mentioned Deumeland judgment, ibid.).   The first phase therefore lasted six years, seven months and twenty-three days (30 September 1965 - 23 May 1972).   53.      In the Commission's view, the second phase began on 1 October 1975, when the Supreme Board agreed to reopen the proceedings (see paragraph 10 above).   The Court is not of the same opinion.   It considers it must take the relevant date as being 6 September 1974, when the applicants requested the reopening of proceedings, challenging - on the basis of the zoning plan of 7 September 1971 - the valuation of some of their former land (ibid.).   This second phase is still under way; it has already lasted more than twelve and a half years (6 September 1974 - 24 March 1987).   54.      Consequently, the total length of time to be considered amounts to more than nineteen years.   (ii)   Relevant criteria   55.      The reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be assessed according to the particular circumstances and having regard to the criteria stated in the case-law of the Co