CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 10 juillet 1989

.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 }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 11796/85                       by W.                       against Austria             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 10 July 1989, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   G. SPERDUTI                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER                   J. CAMPINOS                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              Mr.   L. LOUCAIDES                Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 12 August 1985 by W. against Austria and registered on 8 October 1985 under file No. 11796/85;           Having regard to:         - the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of         Procedure of the Commission;         - the Commission's decision of 29 February 1988 to bring the         application to the notice of the respondent Government and         invite them to submit written observations on its         admissibility and merits;         - the observations submitted by the respondent Government on         26 May 1988 and the observations in reply submitted by the         applicants on 15 July 1988;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The facts of the case as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows:           The applicants, Austrian citizens born in 1935 and 1936 respectively who live on their farm in Hartkirchen, Upper Austria, are represented by Mr.   Peter Wiesauer, a lawyer practising in Linz. They complain of agricultural land consolidation proceedings (Flurbereinigungsverfahren) under the Upper Austrian Agricultural Land Planning Act (Flurverfassungs-Landesgesetz).           The proceedings were instituted by the Agricultural District Authority (Agrarbezirksbehörde) of Linz on 22 July 1975.   The valuation of the lands included in the consolidation proceedings was fixed by a decision of 13 August 1976 against which the applicants did not appeal.           On 13 October 1978 the authority ordered the provisional transfer (vorläufige Übernahme) according to the draft consolidation plan (Neueinteilungsplan) to which the applicants had declared their consent.   The applicants were thereby required to transfer five parcels comprising an area of 25,206 m² of agricultural land to other parties.   Pursuant to Section 22 of the Provincial Act the latter acquired conditional property rights subject to confirmation of the attribution of these parcels in the final consolidation plan (Flurbereinigungsplan).   The applicants acquired corresponding rights in their compensation parcels (Abfertigungsgrundstücke).   They did not appeal against this measure.           On 1 September 1978 the municipal council (Gemeinderat) of Hartkirchen adopted an area zoning plan (Flächenwidmungsplan) according to which the applicants' former parcels continued to be designated as agricultural land although certain adjoining parcels had been redesignated as building plots (Bauland) in 1976 and 1978.   The plan was approved by the Provincial Government (Landesregierung) of Upper Austria on 10 October 1978.   Upon request of the new owners, the municipal council subsequently decided on 16 November 1979 to amend the above zoning plan and to also designate the five parcels which had earlier belonged to the applicants as building plots.   The amendment of the zoning plan was approved by the Regional Government on 16 April 1980 and became final on 6 May 1980.   The applicants state that contrary to the law they were in no way associated to these proceedings and that they learnt thereof only when construction work started on the land, the new owners having divided the parcels and having sold certain plots.           The Government submit that, in view of the redesignation of the adjoining land, the applicants must have been aware since 1976 that a redesignation of their former land was likely to occur as well.   The applicants contest this.           On 10 August 1982 the applicants applied to the Agricultural District Authority to exclude the parcels in question from the consolidation proceedings and return them to the applicants.   They claimed that these parcels were lands of special value (Flächen mit besonderem Wert) which according to the applicable legislation (Section 19 para. 10 of the Provincial Act) must in principle be left to the previous owners.   In the alternative the applicants requested the attribution of equivalent compensation parcels designated as building plots, and in the further alternative the adjudication of monetary compensation (Geldwertentschädigung).   At the same time they demanded compensation (Schadenersatz) for the loss of interest (Zinsverlust) allegedly suffered by the fact that they had not themselves been able to sell the parcels in question as building plots.   On the basis of a square metre price of AS 400 and an interest rate of 10% they provisionally claimed a loss of AS 1,600,000 in respect of two years since the change of designation.           The Agricultural District Authority refused to deal with the application.   In a letter of 17 January 1983 it referred to Section 20 para. 6 of the Provincial Act according to which any compensation claims can be raised only within a period of six months after the consolidation plan has become final.   The authority observed that in the present case the consolidation plan had not yet been issued although it was shortly to be expected.           In the absence of a decision within the statutory time limit, the applicants on 8 August 1983 requested a transfer of jurisdiction (Devolution) to the higher authority, i.e. the Provincial Land Reform Board (Landesagrarsenat), pursuant to Section 73 of the Code of General Administrative Procedure (Allgemeines Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz). The Provincial Board took its decision on 17 November 1983.   Insofar as the applicants had asked for a decision excluding their former parcels from the consolidation area, the Board assumed jurisdiction, but rejected the applicants' claim as unjustified.   The Board did not allow a transfer of jurisdiction as regards the applicants' further claims.   It considered that the District Authority had rightly refused to take a decision on the attribution of other compensation parcels and on the issue of financial compensation.           The applicants addressed an appeal to the Supreme Land Reform Board (Oberster Agrarsenat) which, however, declared the appeal inadmissible on 1 February 1984.   This decision was subsequently confirmed by decisions of the Constitutional Court (Verfassungs- gerichtshof) of 27 June 1984 and of the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) of 25 September 1984.           However, the applicants had appealed to the Administrative Court also immediately from the Provincial Board's above decision of 17 November 1983.   This appeal was in part allowed on 20 March 1984. The Administrative Court confirmed the Provincial Board's decision insofar as it had refused to exclude the applicants' former parcels from the consolidation proceedings.   However, it quashed the Provincial Board's decision insofar as the Board had refused to assume jurisdiction concerning the issues of alternative compensation parcels and monetary compensation.           Accordingly the Provincial Board gave a new decision on these issues on 18 October 1984.   It observed that the damage claimed was not of a nature for which the law (Section 20 of the Provincial Act) provided monetary compensation (i.e. temporary disadvantages caused by the consolidation proceedings).   The applicants' claim for financial compensation was in fundamental conflict with the provisions of the law according to which lands of special value must in principle be compensated by land of the same kind (Section 19 para. 10 of the Provincial Act).   The provisional transfer of lands had become final and therefore it was not possible to change the distribution of parcels pending the proceedings.   However, the provisional transfer did not prejudge the final consolidation plan which had to take into account the entitlement which the applicants might have to be compensated in land of special value in view of the redesignation of their former land (Sections 15 and 16 of the Provincial Act).   This concerned not necessarily all land which they had contributed because an area zoning plan was still under consideration at the competent local authority.   The agricultural authorities had no jurisdiction concerning that matter.           However, the local authority had informed the Provincial Board of a recent plan to designate the applicants' compensation parcels as a building area.   Details were not yet known.   In any event the questions concerning the designation of the land in the area zoning plan were preliminary questions (Vorfragen) for the agricultural authorities which could take their decision on the final consolidation plan only when these preliminary questions had been settled.   Only after the decision had been taken on the consolidation plan would the Provincial Board be competent to examine in the context of appeal proceedings whether or not the applicants had been lawfully compensated by their parcels.   Their request to decide this question immediately was therefore inadmissible.           The applicants appealed against this decision to the Constitutional Court.   However, on 24 June 1985 the Court refused to deal with the case as it considered that there was no issue of specific relevance under constitutional law (Article 144 para. 2 of the Federal Constitution).   The Provincial Board's decision did not involve a breach of the constitutional right of property, and the right to a decision by the lawful judge could only be violated if the (Federal) Agricultural Proceedings Act (Agrarverfahrensgesetz) had been wrongly applied.   The question whether or not this had been the case could be decided by the Administrative Court to which the case was referred according to the applicants' request.           The Administrative Court rejected the applicants' complaints by a decision of 19 November 1985.   It observed that by the provisional transfer of lands the applicants had received compensation parcels according to their own wishes whose designation as agricultural land had not been changed.   Therefore they had not suffered any temporary disadvantages in respect of which they could claim a financial compensation.   It was true that their former parcels had subsequently been designated as a building area.   However, this change of designation was to be taken into account in the final consolidation plan.   It was not possible to change the provisional transfer.   Section 68 of the Code of General Administrative Procedure which the applicants had invoked in this respect was not applicable since a modification of the decision on the provisional transfer would interfere with the rights of the new owners.           In the main proceedings the applicants had in the meantime, on 17 January 1984, requested a transfer of jurisdiction from the Agricultural District Authority to the Provincial Land Reform Board. They had referred to Section 7 (a) of the Agricultural Proceedings Act which required the agricultural authorities to issue the final consolidation plan within a period of three years from the provisional transfer of lands.           However, by a decision of 7 June 1984 the Provincial Board refused to assume jurisdiction.   It acknowledged that it was the purpose of Section 7 (a) of the Agricultural Proceedings Act to ensure that the consolidation plan was issued not later than three years after the provisional transfer had become final.   However, having regard to Section 73 of the Code of General Administrative Procedure this statutory time limit could be considered as violated only if the delay was exclusively the fault of the competent authority.   In the present case no fault lay with the Agricultural District Authority.   It had continuously been engaged in the preparation of the consolidation plan, but its work had been delayed by (a) the planning of a new federal road across the consolidation area;   (b) litigation in the applicants' case and in the case of another party which had involved the necessity to send the file to various other authorities during lengthy periods;   (c)   the proceedings concerning the modification of the area zoning plan.   These proceedings fell in the jurisdiction of the local authority and concerned a preliminary issue (Vorfrage) to the Agricultural District Authority's decision.   The latter had contacted the local authority with a view to expediting the proceedings even before the applicants' request for a transfer of jurisdiction. However, the Agricultural District Authority could not take a decision until the area zoning proceedings were completed.   An interruption (Aussetzen) of the proceedings was legally justified in these circumstances and therefore the Agricultural District Authority could not be held responsible for the delay.           The applicants' appeal against this decision was rejected by the Supreme Land Reform Board on 6 March 1985.   It confirmed the Provincial Board's holding that a transgression of the statutory three years time limit in Section 7 (a) of the Agricultural Proceedings Act was unlawful only if it was exclusively the fault of the authority. There was no fault if there existed an unsurmountable obstacle.   The fact that proceedings concerning the modification of the area zoning plan were still pending constituted such an obstacle: The Agricultural District Authority was required to take into account the area zoning and building plans (Section 12 para. 2).   The latter were excluded from the competence of the Agricultural District Authority which could not reasonably act before the decision of the competent local authority.   The local authority had indicated on 14 May 1984 that it was considering measures which would permit the allotment of land designated as a building area to the applicants.   In these circumstances it was fully justified that the Agricultural District Authority had suspended its proceedings.           The applicants appealed to the Constitutional Court which, under Article 144 para. 2 of the Federal Constitution, again refused to deal with the matter.   Its decision of 23 November 1985 invoked the same reasons as the decision of 24 June 1985 (see above).           The case was referred to the Administrative Court which on 8 April 1986 likewise rejected the applicants' complaints.   It confirmed the decision of the Supreme Land Reform Board according to which the Provincial Board's refusal to assume jurisdiction had been justified at the relevant time having regard to the obstacle which prevented the Agricultural District Authority from taking a decision. The Court added that the applicants' objections against the land compensation which they had received by the provisional transfer (i.e. the fact that this land was designated only for agricultural purposes, and that its area was insufficient) concerned the determination of lawful compensation parcels and thus a matter reserved for consideration in connection with the final consolidation plan.           The Agricultural District Authority issued this plan by a decision of 16 July 1986.   By this decision the situation created by the provisional transfer was changed concerning the applicants to whom part of their former land (9,680 m²) was returned.   On the whole they obtained 19,909 m² designated as a possible future building area (Bauerwartungsland).   It was further noted that already in 1974 they had received monetary compensation in respect of certain parcels (agricultural, building, and future building areas) which they had been required to contribute for the construction of the new federal road.   Their request to be compensated on the ground that the value of their former parcels had increased as a consequence of their reclassification was rejected.   The authority observed that before the provisional transfer these parcels had been designated as agricultural land and the applicants had accordingly obtained other agricultural land in exchange.   The subsequent change of classification was taken into account in the determination of the final compensation parcels. The applicants had not suffered any temporary damage and were not legally entitled to any financial compensation.           An appeal against this decision is now pending before the Provincial Land Reform Board in which the applicants claim that the compensation parcels assigned to them are less valuable than those which they contributed.   They allege having suffered a loss of more than four million AS.           In connection with the above proceedings the applicants also tried to seize the civil courts in order to prevent construction work on their former property which in the official land register (Grundbuch) was still registered in their name.   They brought an action in the Regional Court (Kreisgericht) of Wels against a couple who had bought part of this land as a building plot, seeking an injunction which would prevent them from starting construction work.   However, on 16 October 1985 the Regional Court denied its jurisdiction (Unzulässigkeit des Rechtsweges).   It observed that Section 102 of the Provincial Act transferred to the agricultural authorities, for the duration of the consolidation proceedings, the jurisdiction concerning all property disputes in the consolidation area.   On 21 February 1986 the Linz Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) quashed this decision on the applicants' appeal.   However, on 19 June 1986 the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) restored it, thus finally confirming that the civil courts had no jurisdiction in the matter.           The applicants asked for permission to build two fodder silos on the compensation parcels assigned to them near their farmhouse. However, the permission was refused on the ground that they were only provisional owners of the land in question.   COMPLAINTS           The applicants allege violations of Article 6 para. 1 and Article 14 of the Convention as well as of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.           The applicants complain of the organisation of the Land Reform Boards which in their view do not constitute independent and impartial tribunals within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1.   They argue that the Boards comprise expert members who have to submit certain opinions in the course of the proceedings and who nevertheless subsequently take part in the voting.   Moreover, these expert members and, indeed, the majority of the Boards are civil servants who outside their functions in the Boards are subject to instructions of the Government.           The applicants further complain under Article 6 para. 1 that the agricultural proceedings which determined their civil rights were not conducted within a reasonable time.   The statutory time limit for issuing the consolidation plan expired in 1981.   The argument used by the Agricultural District Authority that its proceedings were held up by the necessity to await the outcome of the area zoning procedure is not correct.   The local authority undertook in February 1984 not to change the zoning plan without the agreement of the Agricultural District Authority.   However, the latter repeatedly asked the local authority to change the zoning plan, thus unnecessarily delaying the proceedings.   When the consolidation plan was finally issued in 1986, it showed a number of deficiencies which had to be raised on appeal. The end of the proceedings is not foreseeable.           Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicants allege an unlawful expropriation of their land without compensation.   As a result of the fact that the agricultural land which they lost by the provisional transfer was subsequently designated as a building area while the land which they obtained was not, they allegedly suffered a damage of several million AS. Their attempts to be compensated either in equivalent land or in money were all unsuccessful and the applicants were simply referred to the final consolidation plan.   The applicant's temporary damage was increased by the delay until the consolidation plan was issued.   This plan moreover did not attribute appropriate compensation parcels to them.   As a consequence they ran into financial difficulties and were compelled to sell their forest in order to be able to carry out necessary repair work at the farm building.           With regard to their complaint under Article 14 of the Convention the applicants submit that the increase in value of the land which they had contributed, which was brought about by its subsequent reclassification, in fact accrued to other parties. Moreover, other parties obtained building permits in respect of certain former parcels of the applicants while the consolidation proceedings were still pending and while the parcels in question were still registered in the applicants' name in the official land register.   The applicants, however, were refused permission to build on a parcel which had been transferred to them from another party.   PROCEEDINGS           The application was introduced on 12 August and registered on 8 October 1985.           On 29 February 1988 the Commission decided to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite them, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, to submit before 6 May 1988 observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of the application.   The time-limit was subsequently extended at the Government's request until 6 June 1988.           The Government submitted their observations on 26 May 1988 and the applicants replied thereto on 15 July 1988.           On 14 October 1988 the Commission decided to grant the applicants free legal aid.   THE LAW   1.       With regard to the consolidation proceedings by which their land was affected, the applicants allege several violations of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   Insofar as relevant, this provision reads as follows:           "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 do not contest the applicability of this provision to the proceedings complained of.   The Commission, recalling the Ettl, Erkner and Hofauer, and Poiss judgments of the Court (Eur. Court H.R., judgments of 23 April 1987, Series A no. 117:   Ettl p. 16, para. 32; Erkner and Hofauer p. 60, para. 62; and Poiss p. 102, para. 48), finds Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) to be applicable.           The applicants consider the organisation of the agricultural authorities to be in breach of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1).   In their submissions the Land Reform Boards are not independent and impartial tribunals as their majority is constituted of civil servants who, in other functions, are subject to instructions of the Government, including expert members who submit opinions in the course of the proceedings and subsequently take part in the voting.   However, analogous complaints were examined by the Court in the above-cited Ettl judgment, where it came to the conclusion that, despite the participation of civil servants and expert members entitled to vote, the Land Reform Boards satisfied the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) (ibid, pp. 17-19, paras. 33-41).   For the reasons stated by the Court, the applicants' complaints in this respect must accordingly be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.       The applicants then complain that their civil rights and obligations have not been determined within a "reasonable time" as required by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   They submit that the proceedings, starting on the date of the provisional transfer in October 1978, must be considered as a whole and therefore have lasted already more than ten years.           The Government, on the other hand, observe that there were several proceedings, each with a different object, which should be examined separately. The applicants did not appeal against the valuation of the land and the provisional transfer; on the contrary they expressly declared their consent to these measures.   A first dispute concerning their civil rights arose on 10 August 1982 when the applicants requested that their former land be excluded from the consolidation area, alternatively that they be compensated for the increase in value following the redesignation of this land. This dispute was finally determined within three years, three months and six days (Administrative Court decision of 19 November 1985).   A further - parallel - dispute arose on 17 January 1984 when the applicants complained of the delay in the consolidation proceedings, requesting a transfer of jurisdiction to the higher authority.   This dispute was finally determined within two years two months and twenty-four days (Administrative Court decision of 8 April 1986).   A third dispute arose in the summer of 1985 when the applicants brought a court action seeking an injunction against construction work on their former land.   It was determined within about one year (Supreme Court decision of 19 June 1986).   A fourth dispute is pending since July 1986 when the applicants lodged an appeal against the consolidation plan.   In the Government's view none of the periods involved is excessive.   Even if the above proceedings should be regarded as a whole, their overall length (more than six years since August 1982) is justifiable having regard to the extreme complexity of the matter and the necessity to wait for planning decisions to be taken in the public interest.           Although both parties have referred to certain judicial proceedings, there is no complaint concerning their length.   The Commission must accordingly limit its examination to the administrative proceedings before the agricultural authorities.   As regards these latter proceedings, the Commission notes the disagreement between the parties as to whether they constitute a series of separate proceedings to be considered individually, or one set of continuous proceedings to be considered as a whole.   It further notes the disagreement between the parties as to the date when a dispute concerning civil rights first arose and as to whether, in the determination of this dispute, a reasonable time has been exceeded. In the light of these submissions of the parties, and having regard to the Erkner-Hofauer and Poiss judgments of the Court (loc. cit.), the Commission finds that the applicants' above complaint cannot be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded as it raises difficult and complex questions of law and fact whose determination requires an examination of the merits.   3.       The applicants further complain of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention.   This provision reads as follows:   "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.   No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.   The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."           The applicants submit that there has been an unlawful expropriation of their land without compensation:   after the redesignation of their former land they could neither secure the exclusion of this land from the consolidation area, nor the allotment of the same or equivalent land, nor a financial compensation.           The Government submit in reply that the applicants had consented to the provisional transfer of their agricultural land to other parties and that they received equivalent agricultural land in exchange as their provisional property.   After the increase in value of their former land brought about by its redesignation as building land, the applicants had a right under Austrian law to receive equivalent land of special value.   Insofar as the compensation parcels due to them have not yet been finally determined, the applicants have not yet exhausted the domestic remedies as their appeal against the consolidation plan of July 1986 is still pending.   Insofar as the applicants complain of an interference with their property rights pending the final decision on the consolidation plan, the Government observe that the situation is different from the Erkner-Hofauer and Poiss cases (loc. cit.) as the applicants essentially complain of the effects of the redesignation of their former land brought about after the provisional transfer at the request of the new owners.   The applicants could also have asked for a redesignation of the land provisionally assigned to them.   In the Government's view the applicants cannot claim to be victims of an interference with their property rights within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), as this provision does not give them any right to profit from the increase in value of land which they have already given up.   Even if an interference with the applicants' property rights could be assumed, it would be of a temporary nature and not disproportionate, contrary to the requirements of the first sentence of the first paragraph or the second paragraph of Article 1 (Art. 1).           The Commission, agreeing with the Government, finds that the domestic remedies have not been exhausted as regards the compensation due to the applicants in the consolidation plan.   As regards the question whether there has been an unjustified interference with the applicants' property rights pending the final adoption of this plan, the Commission, having considered the parties' arguments and the Erkner-Hofauer and Poiss judgments of the Court (loc. cit.), finds that the applicants' above complaint cannot be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded as it raises difficult and complex questions of law and fact whose determination requires an examination of the merits.   4.       The applicants finally complain that they have been discriminated against, contrary to Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention.   This provision reads as follows:   "The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."           The applicants submit that there has been discrimination, as regards the enjoyment of their property rights within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention, in that they were treated less favourably than the new provisional owners of their former land to whom the benefit of the increased value brought about by the redesignation of this land accrued and who, contrary to the applicants, were granted building permits.           The Government submit that the applicants have failed to invoke the principle of equality in their complaints to the Constitutional Court and thus have not exhausted the domestic remedies, and that, in any case, they have failed to substantiate their complaint.           The Commission notes the applicants' argument that they tried to secure equal treatment with the new owners by their applications to the agricultural authorities and by the action which they lodged with the civil courts.   The Commission finds that the applicants' complaint of discrimination is so closely linked to the issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) that it cannot be separated.   This part of the application must therefore also be reserved for an examination of the merits.           For these reasons, the Commission   1.       DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the applicants' complaint that the         organisation of the agricultural authorities was not         in conformity with the requirements of Article 6 para. 1         (Art. 6-1) of the Convention;   2.       DECLARES ADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application,         without prejudging the merits of the case.     Secretary to the Commission                President of the Commission          (H.C. KRÜGER)                                (C.A. NØRGAARD)