CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 6 juin 1990

.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 }  Application No. 11796/85   Konrad and Klara WIESINGER against   AUSTRIA   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 6 June 1990)                           TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                  Page I.       INTRODUCTION         (paras. 1 - 13) ......................................    1           A.       The application                 (paras. 2 - 4)   ..............................    1           B.       The proceedings                 (paras. 5 - 8) ...............................    1           C.       The present Report                 (paras. 9 - 13) ..............................    2     II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS         (paras.   14 - 72) ....................................    3           A.       The particular circumstances of the case                 (paras. 14 - 47) .............................    3                   1.   Institution of land consolidation                 proceedings and provisional transfer of land                 (paras. 14 - 16) .............................    3                 2.   Amendment of the area-zoning plan                 (paras. 17 - 19) .............................    3                 3.   Interim proceedings taken in order to                 adjust the consolidation proceedings to the                 amended area-zoning plan (paras. 20 - 29) ....    4                 4.   Interim proceedings taken in order to                 speed up the consolidation proceedings                 (paras. 30 - 36) .............................    6                 5.   The consolidation plan (paras. 37 - 39) ...    7                 6.   The appeal proceedings (paras. 40 - 42) ...    7                 7.   Parallel civil proceedings (paras. 43 -45).    8                 8.   Proceedings concerning building permits                 (paras. 46 - 47) .............................    8           B.       Relevant domestic law                 (paras. 48 - 72) .............................    9                   1.   The land reform legislation                 (paras. 48 - 63) .............................    9                 2.   Provisions on the authorities' duty                 to decide within a reasonable time                 (paras. 64 - 67) .............................   11                 3.   Area-zoning plans (paras. 68 - 72) ........   11   III.     OPINION OF THE COMMISSION         (paras. 73 - 129) ....................................   13           A.       Points at issue                 (para. 73) ...................................   13           B.       Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention                 (length of proceedings) (paras. 74 - 108) ....   13                 Conclusion (para. 109) .......................   18           C.       Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the                 Convention (paras. 110 - 121) ................   18                 Conclusion (para. 122) .......................   20           D.       Article 14 of the Convention                 (paras. 123 - 125) ...........................   20                 Conclusion (para. 126) .......................   21           E.       Recapitulation                 (paras. 127 - 129) ...........................   21   APPENDIX I       :   HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ................   22   APPENDIX II      :   DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY .............   23   I.     INTRODUCTION   1.       The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.       The application   2.       The applicants are Austrian citizens, born in 1935 and 1936 respectively, who live on their farm in Hartkirchen, Upper Austria. They were represented by Mr.   Peter Wiesauer, a lawyer practising in Linz.   3.       The application is directed against Austria.   The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr.   Helmut Türk, Head of the International Law Department of the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   4.       The case concerns agricultural land consolidation proceedings. The applicants complain under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention that in these proceedings their civil rights were not determined within a reasonable time;   under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the proceedings involved an unjustified interference with their property rights in that the land provisionally assigned to them did not correspond to the value of their original land; and under Article 14 of the Convention that they were treated less favourably than the provisional new owners of their former land.   B.       The proceedings   5.       The application was introduced on 12 August 1985 and registered on 8 October 1985.   On 29 February 1988 the Commission decided in accordance with Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite them to present before 6 May 1988 their observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of the application.   Following an extension of the time-limit, these observations were submitted on 26 May 1988.   The applicants submitted observations in reply on 20 July 1988.   6.       On 14 October 1988 the Commission granted legal aid to the applicants.   7.       The application was again examined by the Commission on 10 July 1989 when the above complaints were declared admissible while a further complaint under Article 6 was declared inadmissible.   On 29 August 1989 the admissibility decision was communicated to the parties who were invited to submit further observations on the merits by 16 October 1989.   The applicants submitted further observations on 13 October 1989, the Government on 17 October 1989.   8.       After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement.   Negotiations took place between August 1989 and May 1990. In the light of the parties' reactions, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.       The present Report   9.       The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:                MM.   C. A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   G. SPERDUTI                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J. C. SOYER                   H. G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY   10.      The text of this Report was adopted on 6 June 1990 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   11.      The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:   i)       to establish the facts, and   ii)      to state an opinion as to whether the facts found         disclose a breach by the State concerned of its         obligations under the Convention.   12.      A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application as Appendix II.   13.      The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.       The particular circumstances of the case           1.   Institution of land consolidation proceedings             and provisional transfer of land   14.      Agricultural land consolidation proceedings (Flurbe- reinigungsverfahren) under the Upper Austrian Agricultural Land Planning Act (Flurverfassungs-Landesgesetz) were instituted for the area concerned by the Agricultural District Authority (Agrarbezirks- behörde) of Linz on 22 July 1975.   15.      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.   16.       On 13 October 1978 the authority ordered the provisional transfer (vorläufige Übernahme) of lands according to a draft consolidation plan (Neueinteilungsplan) to which the applicants had consented.   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.           2.   Amendment of the area-zoning plan   17.      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.   18.      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.   19.      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 in respect of which building permits were issued.   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.           3.   Interim proceedings taken in order to adjust the             consolidation proceedings to the amended area-zoning plan           a)   Applicants' request for exclusion of             their parcels from the consolidation area             ----------------------------------------- 20.      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 now to be regarded as 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 AS 1,600,000 in respect of two years since the change of designation.   21.      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 compensation claims can be raised only within a period of six months after the consolidation plan has become final.   The authority observed that the consolidation plan had not yet been issued although it was shortly to be expected.   22.      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).   23.      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.   24.      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.   25.      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.           b)   Financial compensation             ---------------------- 26.      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 Section 20 of the Provincial Act provided monetary compensation (i.e. temporary disadvantages caused by the consolidation proceedings).   The applicants' claim for financial compensation conflicted with Section 19 para. 10 of the Provincial Act according to which lands of special value must in principle be compensated by land of the same kind.   The provisional transfer of lands having become final, 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.   27.      The Provincial Board also noted that it was envisaged to designate the applicants' compensation parcels as a building area.   It observed that details of this plan were not yet known.   In any event questions concerning the designation of the land in the area-zoning plan were preliminary questions (Vorfragen) for the agricultural authorities which could adopt the final consolidation plan only when these preliminary questions had been settled.   Only thereafter would the Provincial Board be competent to examine in appeal proceedings whether or not the applicants had received lawful compensation parcels.   Their request to decide this question immediately was therefore inadmissible.   28.      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 found no relevant issue under constitutional law (Article 144 para. 2 of the Federal Constitution).   The Provincial Board's decision did not violate 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.   29.      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 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 was not applicable since a modification of the decision on the provisional transfer would interfere with the rights of the new owners.           4.   Interim proceedings taken in order to speed up             the consolidation proceedings   30.      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.   31.      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.   32.      In the Provincial Board's view 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 during which the file had been with various other authorities during lengthy periods; and (c) the proceedings concerning the modification of the area-zoning plan.   33.      The Provincial Board observed that the latter proceedings fell within the jurisdiction of the local authority and concerned a preliminary issue (Vorfrage) to the Agricultural District Authority's decision. That authority 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.   A suspension (Aussetzen) of the consolidation proceedings was legally justified in these circumstances and therefore the Agricultural District Authority could not be held responsible for the delay.   34.      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, since the Agricultural District Authority was required to take into account the area-zoning and building plans (Section 12 para. 2 of the Act).   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 had been given.   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 justified that the Agricultural District Authority had suspended its proceedings.   35.      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 para. 28 above).   36.      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.           5.   The consolidation plan   37.      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).   38.      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.   39.      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 entitled to any financial compensation.           6.   The appeal proceedings   40.      The applicants appealed against this decision to the Provincial Land Reform Board, claiming that the compensation parcels assigned to them were less valuable than their original parcels.   They alleged having suffered a loss of more than four million AS.   41.      In view of that appeal, the authorities attempted to reach a settlement with the parties concerned.   First, this was tried by the Agricultural District Authority in the procedure under Section 7 para. 4 of the Federal Agricultural Proceedings Act (Agrarverfahrens- gesetz).   For this purpose, a total of twelve meetings, hearings and investigations took place between 20 October 1986 and 8 July 1987. Subsequently, the Provincial Board also tried to secure an agreement between the parties involved.   A total of eighteen hearings and investigations took place between 28 September 1987 and 28 August 1989 with the participation of the parties, the local authority, the road administration and the supervisory authority competent for changes in designation of land.   In this connection the Provincial Board applied to the local authority for certain land which it intended to assign to the applicants to be redesignated as a building area (industrial site).   42.      As eventually no agreement could be reached, the Provincial Board held a hearing on 28 September 1989.   On 24 January 1990 the Board in part allowed the applicants' appeal against the consolidation plan of 16 July 1986 (cf. paras. 37 - 39 above), allotting them, in particular, a certain part of their former (redesignated) land and other land which had been redesignated as an industrial site or whose redesignation was envisaged.   The applicants' claim for financial compensation was again rejected.   On 9 February 1990 the applicants lodged an appeal against this decision.   They claimed that it was incompatible with the aim of the consolidation proceedings to create more and more building land instead of improving the agricultural structure.   In any event the compensation parcels assigned to them were insufficient as their merely formal redesignation as building land did not correspond to the economic realities.   The applicants also challenged the refusal of financial compensation.   This appeal is still pending with the Supreme Land Reform Board.           7. Parallel civil proceedings   43.      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.   44.      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.   45.      On 21 February 1986 the Linz Court of Appeal (Oberlandes- gericht) 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.           8.   Proceedings concerning building permits   46.      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.   47.      As already mentioned (para. 19 above), several other parties were granted building permits on the new land provisionally assigned to them.   B.       Relevant domestic law           1.   The land reform legislation   48.      According to Article 12 of the Federal Constitution, the legislative competences in land reform matters are split between the Federation and the Provinces.   The Federation regulates the procedure (Agricultural Proceedings Act/Agrarverfahrensgesetz 1950) and the organisation of the competent authorities (Agricultural Authorities Act/Agrarbehördengesetz 1950 as amended in 1974).   As regards substantive law, the Federation only lays down the principles (Agricultural Land Planning (General Principles) Act/Flurverfassungs- Grundsatzgesetz 1951 as amended in 1977) while the details are regulated by the Provinces.   49.      In Upper Austria, the relevant law is the Provincial Agricultural Land Planning Act (Flurverfassungs-Landesgesetz) of 1979 which replaced an earlier Act of 1972.   The proceedings in the present case were instituted under the 1972 Act, on the basis of which the provisional transfer of lands was also ordered.   However, the subsequent main proceedings were governed by the 1979 Act.   50.      Under Section 1 para. 1 of the 1979 Act, the aim of consolidation proceedings is the improvement or restructuration of the conditions in which land is owned, used and managed in the rural world and economy, by redistribution and development of agricultural and forestry land in accordance with modern economic and management principles, in the interest of achieving and maintaining an efficient agricultural sector.   51.      Under Section 3 the proceedings are instituted ex officio by an ordinance (Verordnung) which determines the consolidation area. Under Section 2 para. 1 this area is delimited, having regard to the local and economic conditions, in such a manner that the objectives and purposes of the consolidation can be achieved as fully as possible.   52.      Under Section 2 para. 2 all parcels of land situated in this area are subject to consolidation.   They include agricultural and forestry land as defined in Section 1 para. 3 of the Act (i.e. including the relevant buildings and farmyards) and non-agricultural or forestry land as defined in Section 15 para. 3.   The latter land may be subjected to consolidation only with the consent of the owners.   53.      Under Section 4 para. 2 land which is not needed for the purposes of consolidation may subsequently be excluded from the consolidation area by an administrative decision.   54.      The inclusion of land in the consolidation area has the effect of creating restrictions on its use while the proceedings are pending. During this period any change of use requires the approval of the agricultural authority.   Special provisions (Sections 94 et seq. of the Act) stipulate that entries in the land register incompatible with the aims of the consolidation proceedings are inadmissible.   Under Section 97 para. 1 it is for the agricultural authority to decide on compatibility with the consolidation proceedings.   55.      The institution of consolidation proceedings furthermore has the effect that the jurisdiction concerning all factual and legal circumstances which might be relevant in these proceedings, including, in particular, the jurisdiction concerning disputes on ownership and tenure of land in the consolidation area, passes to the agricultural authorities; the authorities which would otherwise have jurisdiction in those matters are no longer competent (Section 102).   56.      The agricultural authority first determines the state of occupation of the lands concerned (Section 11) and assesses their value (Section 12), taking into account, in particular, the relevant area-zoning and building plans (Section 12 para. 2).   The result of this procedure is stated in an administrative decision (Besitzstands- und Bewertungsplan, Section 13) which is subject to appeal.   57.      Under Section 14 para. 1 changes in the value of the land which occur in the course of the proceedings have to be taken into account.   If necessary the authority proceeds to a supplementary assessment of the value (Nachbewertung).   58.      Under Section 19 of the Act the parties are entitled to obtain parcels of equal value to those which they have contributed, or to be re-allocated their previous parcels if they cannot be replaced by land of equal value.   The latter applies, in particular, to land of special value (Section 19 para. 10 (a)) including building plots (Section 12 para. 6).   The applicants submit that, in contrast to the Agricultural Land Planning Acts of other Provinces, the Upper Austrian Act does not refer to a special category of land intended to be used for building purposes in the future (Bauerwartungsland).   59.      The compensation claims of the parties are, in principle, to be satisfied by the allocation of compensation parcels according to the above rules (Section 19 para. 10).   Financial compensation is provided for only in the form of equalisation payments within certain limits and in respect of temporary disadvantages caused by the consolidation proceedings (Section 20).   Claims under the latter heading can be raised within six months after the consolidation plan has become final (Section 20 para. 6).   60.      The re-allocation of lands is effected by a consolidation plan under Section 21 (Zusammenlegungsplan) or Section 29 (Flurbereinigungs- plan), a special type of administrative decision (cf.   Section 7 of the Agricultural Proceedings Act).   The plan takes into account the principles of regional planning and for this purpose the competent local and provincial authorities are heard (Section 15 of the Provincial Act).   61.      An appeal against the consolidation plan is always open to the Provincial Land Reform Board, while a further appeal to the Supreme Land Reform Board can be lodged only if certain conditions are fulfilled (Section 7 of the Agricultural Authorities Act).   A final decision of either of these Boards can be challenged before the Administrative Court (Section 7a of the Agricultural Authorities Act read in conjunction with Article 133 para. 4 of the Federal Constitution) and before the Constitutional Court (Article 144 of the Federal Constitution).   62.      However, under Section 22 of the Provincial Act (in the versions of 1972 and 1979) the agricultural authority may order the provisional transfer (vorläufige Übernahme) of compensation parcels already at an earlier stage.   The ownership of these parcels is transferred conditionally; it will lapse if the parcel in question is allotted to another party in the final consolidation plan.   63.      The original decision ordering a provisional transfer of lands can be challenged before the Provincial Land Reform Board and subsequently before the Administrative and Constitutional Courts. However, under the case-law of the competent authorities it cannot be subsequently amended in the procedure under Section 68 of the Code of General Administrative Procedure (Allgemeines Verwaltungsverfahrens- gesetz), as this provision is only applicable when the rights of other parties are not affected.           2. Provisions on the authorities' duty            to decide within a reasonable time   64.      Section 73 para. 1 of the Code of General Administrative Procedure stipulates that the authorities are obliged to decide on applications of the parties or on appeals without any unnecessary delay and, at the latest, within a time-limit of six months, unless a different time-limit is provided for in special regulations.   65.      This provision is also applicable in agricultural proceedings. However, Section 7a of the Agricultural Proceedings Act fixes a special time-limit for consolidation plans.   They should be adopted not later than three years after the provisional transfer of compensation parcels has become final.   66.      If no decision is served within the above time-limits, the party may request the higher authority to assume jurisdiction (Devolution).   This authority will then be competent to take the decision in place of the lower authority, unless it finds that the delay is not exclusively the latter's fault (Section 73 para. 2).   67.      The higher authority shall take its decision within six months (Section 73 para. 3).   Otherwise a request to assume jurisdiction may be made to the higher authority of the next level, or in case the matter has already been brought before the highest administrative authority, the party may complain to the Administrative Court of that authority's failure to act (Säumnisbeschwerde, Article 132 of the Federal Constitution).   The Administrative Court will then become competent to take a decision on the merits.           3. Area-zoning plans   68.      In Austrian law area-zoning plans (Flächenwidmungspläne) and any amendments to them are regarded as ordinances (Verordnungen) even if they only concern individual property.   Accordingly they are not issued in normal administrative proceedings and the persons affected are not parties to the proceedings.   69.      However, as all ordinances, area-zoning plans are required to be based on law (Article 18 of the Federal Constitution).   In the present case the relevant legislation is the Upper Austrian Regional Planning Act (Raumordnungsgesetz).   It obliges the competent local authorities (Gemeinden) to take into consideration planning proceedings of neighbouring local authorities and other public law corporations as well as regionally significant measures of other planning organisations (Section 15 para. 10).   This also includes the planning projects of the agricultural authorities.   70.      The lawfulness of ordinances can be challenged before the Constitutional Court under Article 139 of the Federal Constitution. However, the right of individual application to this Court is limited to cases where a person is directly affected by an ordinance without the latter being implemented by a judicial or administrative decision.   71.      The case-law has established that area-zoning plans cannot be directly challenged by the affected individuals in the procedure under Article 139 of the Federal Constitution if it is possible to institute an administrative procedure.   72.      This is the case, in particular, where the area-zoning plan is the basis for the granting or withholding of building permits.   The persons affected are expected to assert their rights in the administrative proceedings concerning the building permit.   In these proceedings they can allege that the underlying area-zoning plan has no legal basis or is contrary to the applicable legislation. Ultimately this question can be brought before the Constitutional Court by a constitutional complaint under Article 144 of the Federal Constitution or by a request for norm control proceedings made by the Administrative Court under Article 89 para. 2 and Article 139 of the Federal Constitution.   III.    OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.       Points at issue   73.      The following points are at issue in the present case:   a)       whether there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, in that the applicants' civil rights and obligations were not determined within a reasonable time;   b)       whether there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention;   c)       whether there has been a violation of Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention.   B.       Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (length of proceedings)           1)   Applicability of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)   74.      The first sentence of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention 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."   75.      The Commission considers, as do the parties, that this provision is applicable to the agricultural land consolidation proceedings in question.   It refers, in particular, to the European Court of Human Rights judgments of 23 April 1987 (Series A no. 117: case of Ettl and Others, p. 16 para. 32; case of Erkner and Hofauer, p. 60 para. 62; Poiss case, p. 102 para. 48).           2) The period to be taken into consideration   76.      The parties disagree as to the date when the period to be considered under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention started.   77.      According to the applicants this was the date of the provisional transfer on 13 October 1978.   78.      According to the Government there was no dispute on the applicants' civil rights before 10 August