CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 15 octobre 1991

.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. 18702/91                       by "Familia" F.M. ZUMTOBEL Gesellschaft mbH & Co.                          and Franz Martin ZUMTOBEL                       against Austria           The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 15 October 1991, the following members being present:                MM.   J.A. FROWEIN, Acting President                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                   J.-C. GEUS                   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                   B. MARXER                Mr.   J. RAYMOND, Deputy 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 13 August 1991 by "Familia" F.M. ZUMTOBEL Gesellschaft mbH & Co. and Franz Martin ZUMTOBEL against Austria and registered on 21 August 1991 under file No. 18702/91;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.   Particular circumstances of the case           The first applicant is a commercial enterprise under Austrian law.   The second applicant, an Austrian citizen residing at Dornbirn, is the manager of the first applicant.           On 20 December 1984 the Mayor of Wörgl granted the first applicant a permit to build a supermarket, to be divided into two separated shops.   However, the two shopping areas were joined into one big shop during the construction of the building.                                    I.           On 12 August 1986 the Mayor of Wörgl dismissed the belated request for a building permit for the changed project.   The Mayor found in particular that the building now was a shopping centre and that the building permit was requested for an area that was not designated as a special area for shopping centres (Sonderfläche für Einkaufszentren).           The first applicant appealed against the decision, claiming that the decision was unlawful as its legal basis, the Regional Planning Act, was unconstitutional.           On 2 December 1986 the Wörgl Town Council (Stadtrat) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the authority in question had been bound by the law in force at the time of the decision.           On 27 January 1987 the Tyrolean Provincial Government (Landesregierung) dismissed a further appeal as the project was contrary to the area zoning plan.           The first applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof).   It submitted that the decision violated its right of property and that its legal basis (Section 16b of the Tyrolean Regional Planning Act) was inter alia contrary to the distribution of legislative powers (Articles 10 - 15 of the Federal Constitution).   The second applicant further contended that the decision contradicted Article 6 of the Convention, the principle of equality and the independence of local authorities (Gemeindeautonomie).           On 14 March 1988 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the complaint for lack of prospect to succeed and referred the case to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof).           On 13 December 1990 the Administrative Court dismissed the first applicant's complaint.   In the Court's opinion it was undisputed that a shopping centre had in fact been constructed, for which there was no special designation.   Therefore the authorities had to refuse the building request as it was contrary to the area zoning plan.   This decision was served on the first applicant on 18 February 1991.                                    II.           On 15 June 1986 the Mayor of Wörgl refused the permit to use the shopping centre (Benützungsbewilligung), on the ground that the building was not in accordance with the building permit and the Tyrolean Land Planning Act.           The first applicant appealed against this decision, claiming that the decision was unlawful as the provisions of the Tyrolean Regional Planing Act referred to in the decision were unconstitutional.           On 24 September 1986 the Wörgl Town Council dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the construction of a shopping centre was contrary to the area zoning plan and that the authorities were bound by the laws.           On 5 November 1986 the Provincial Government quashed the decision as the building permit proceedings were still pending and referred the case back to the Town Council which, on 3 December 1986, referred the case to the Mayor.           On 19 January 1987 the Mayor again refused the permit to use the shopping centre on the same grounds as in his first decision.           On 13 April 1987 and on 22 July 1987 the first applicant's appeals were dismissed by the Wörgl Town Council and the Tyrolean Provincial Government, respectively.           On 14 March 1988 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the first applicant's further complaint for lack of prospect to succeed and referred the case to the Administrative Court.           On 18 August 1988 in a supplement to its complaint to the Administrative Court, the first applicant submitted that a use permit could have been granted even in the absence of a building permit.           On 13 December 1988 the Administrative Court dismissed the complaint finding that a new building permit was necessary before a use permit could be granted for the same reasons as those given in its decision concerning the building permit of the same day (see above I). This decision was also served on the first applicant on 18 February 1991.                                    III.           On 29 April 1987 the Mayor of Wörgl ordered the first applicant to pull down its shopping centre by 31 December 1987 as the building permit had been finally refused.           On 9 September 1987 the Wörgl Town Council dismissed the first applicant's appeal as there was no building permit for the supermarket.           On 21 June 1988 the Tyrolean Provincial Government dismissed a further appeal on the ground that the first applicant had built a shopping centre for which it did not have a building permit.           On 28 November 1988 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the first applicant's complaint against the Provincial Government's decision and referred the case to the Administrative Court.           On 6 December 1990 the Administrative Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the shopping centre was a building for which the building permit had been refused.   Therefore, the order to pull the building down was lawful.   This decision was served on the first applicant on 18 February 1991.   Relevant domestic law and practice   I.       Building legislation           According to Section 31 of the Tyrolean Building Regulations (Bauordnung) in the former version the authority has to decide on a building request by a written decision.   Paragraph 3 of Section 31 states:   [Translation]   "A building request is to be refused without an oral hearing, if already the request or the documents reveal that the project is contrary to the area zoning plan, the building development plan or to local building provisions (Section 20 of the Tyrolean Regional Planning Act) or if a building prohibition under Section 29 of the Tyrolean Regional Planning Act precludes the project."   [German]   "Ein Bauansuchen ist ohne Durchführung einer mündlichen Verhandlung abzuweisen, wenn sich bereits aus dem Ansuchen bzw. den Unterlagen ergibt, daß das Bauvorhaben dem Flächenwidmungsplan, dem Bebauungsplan oder örtlichen Bauvorschriften (§ 20 des Tiroler Raumordnungsgesetzes) widerspricht oder wenn dem Bauvorhaben eine Bausperre nach § 29 des Tiroler Raumordnungsgesetzes entgegensteht."           According to Section 43 para. 1 of the Building Regulations the applicant for a building permit has to give notice of the completion of a building subject to a permit.   At the same time he has to request a permit to use the building (Benützungsbewilligung).           Para. 2 of Section 43, as far as relevant, states:   [Translation]   " ... If the realisation of a project deviates from the building permit and if this change constitutes a modification of the project for which no building permit would be necessary in the case of existing buildings the modification may be approved and the permit to use be granted.   In all other cases of a deviation from the building permit the applicant has to request a further building permit for the modification of the project. ... If the building permit is refused, the permit to use has to be refused. ... If the permit to use is refused, the authority has to proceed according to Section 44 para. 3."   [German]   " ... Weicht die Ausführung des Bauvorhabens von der Baubewilligung ab und stellt diese Abweichung eine Änderung des Bauvorhabens dar, zu deren Vornahme bei bestehenden baulichen Anlagen keine Baubewilligung erforderlich wäre, so kann diese Änderung genehmigt und die Benützungsbewilligung erteilt werden. In allen anderen Fällen einer Abweichung von der Baubewilligung hat der Bauwerber nachträglich um die Erteilung der Baubewilligung für die Änderung des Bauvorhabens anzusuchen. ... Wird die Benützungsbewilligung versagt, so hat die Behörde nach § 44 Abs. 3 vorzugehen."           Section 44 para. 3 of the Building Regulations, as far as relevant, reads as follows:   [Translation]   "The authority has to order the demolition of a building within a reasonable time,   a)   if there is no permit for the building, although it would be required, and if the owner has not requested a further building permit within a month after the warning of a demolition order had been served or if the permit to use the building has been refused."   [German]   "Die Behörde hat den Abbruch einer baulichen Anlage innerhalb einer angemessenen Frist anzuordnen,   a)   wenn für die bauliche Anlage eine Bewilligung nicht besteht, obwohl sie bewilligungspflichtig wäre, und der Eigentümer nicht innerhalb eines Monats ab der Zustellung der Androhung des Abbruchauftrages nachträglich um die Erteilung der Baubewilligung angesucht hat oder wenn für diese bauliche Anlage die Baubewilligung versagt worden ist."   II.      Land planning legislation           Land planning in Austria is divided into regional and local land planning (überörtliche und örtliche Raumordnung).   In the present case the building permit at issue was governed by Tyrolean law.           In order to achieve the goals of the regional land planning laid down in Section 1 of the Tyrolean Regional Planning Act the Provincial Government (Landesregierung) has to issue development programmes (Entwicklungsprogramme) (Section 4).           The local land planning is carried out by the communities which issue area zoning plans (Flächenwidmungspläne) that designate the land as building land (Bauland), undeveloped land (Freiland) or main traffic areas (Hauptverkehrsflächen).           Even if a plot of land is designated as building land certain buildings may only be built there if there is express provision in a development programme.   Section 16b of the Regional Planning Act provides for "special areas for shopping centres" (Sonderflächen für Einkaufszentren).   This provision, as far as relevant, reads as follows:   "(1) Shopping centres within the meaning of this Act are buildings with sale-rooms of a total effective area of more than 400 m², in communities with more than 10,000 inhabitants according to the last census of a total effective area of more than 800 m², in which especially articles of everyday use, at any rate food, are offered.   ...   (2) The building permit for the construction of a shopping centre may only be granted if this building will be erected on land which is designated as a special area for shopping centres and if the total effective sale-room area planned in this building does not exceed the maximum prescribed by the area zoning plan. ...   (3) Special areas for shopping centres may only be designated in a building area and only in so far as a development programme provides that a use of land corresponding to this designation is admissible in a particular community. ..."   [German]   "(1) Im Sinne dieses Gesetzes sind Einkaufszentren Gebäude mit Verkaufsräumen von insgesamt mehr als 400 m² Nutzfläche, in Gemeinden, die nach dem Ergebnis der jeweils letzten Volkszählung mehr als 10.000 Einwohner haben, von insgesamt mehr als 800 m² Nutzfläche, in denen insbesondere auch Waren des täglichen Bedarfes, jedenfalls Lebensmittel, angeboten werden. ...   (2) Die Baubewilligung für die Errichtung eines Einkaufszentrums darf nur erteilt werden, wenn dieses Gebäude auf einer Grundfläche, die als Sonderfläche für Einkaufszentren gewidmet ist, errichtet wird und die Nutzfläche der in diesem Gebäude vorgesehenen Verkaufsräume insgesamt das im Flächenwidmungsplan festgesetzte Höchstausmaß nicht übersteigt. ...   (3) Sonderflächen für Einkaufszentren dürfen nur im Bauland und nur insoweit gewidmet werden, als in einem Entwicklungsprogramm bestimmt ist, daß eine dieser Widmung entsprechende Verwendung von Grundflächen in der betreffenden Gemeinde zulässig ist. ..."           Both the development programme and the area zoning plan are Ordinances (Verordnungen).   These ordinances can be challenged before the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) for unlawfulness according to Article 139 of the Austrian Federal Constitution.   In general, however, one cannot complain about the fact that an authority has not issued an ordinance.           In the present case the Provincial Government did not issue a development programme for the community in question.   The owners of affected land are neither parties in the planning proceedings nor can they request an exemption from the designation provided for in the plans.   III.     The jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court           The Austrian Constitutional Court pronounced itself on the applicability and scope of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention to building proceedings originating from Austrian administrative authorities in its decision of 14 October 1987 (B 267/86, VfSlg 11500/1987).   It held that the refusal of a building permit was not a decision on a "civil right".   The Court stated the following:   [Translation]   "The refusal of a building permit is rather an interference by the State in the public interest - it is indeed the very archetype of such an interference -, and the upholding of public interests including the necessary balancing of public and private interests is the essential function of administration.   The fact that the subject of the interference is generally property and hence a private property right, does not change its public law character."   [German]   "Vielmehr ist die Versagung einer Baubewilligung ein hoheitlicher Eingriff im öffentlichen Interesse - ja geradezu der Prototyp eines solchen Eingriffs -, und die Wahrnehmung der öffentlichen Interessen einschließlich der nötigen Abwägung gegenüber privaten Interessen die wesentliche Aufgabe der Verwaltung.   Daß der Gegenstand des   Eingriffs regelmäßig das Eigentum und damit ein privates Vermögensrecht ist, ändert an seinem öffentlich-rechtlichen Charakter nichts."           The Court distinguished between decisions concerning the core of civil law (i.e. disputes among private persons) and decisions on disputes which only concern civil rights in their effects (namely the relationship between the private person and the public).   In order to avoid a complete change of the Austrian State structure, the Court considered that the requirements of a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention should depend on whether the dispute concerned the one or the other category.   With regard to decisions concerning civil rights only in their effects the Court found that it sufficed under Article 6 para. 1 if a tribunal exercised a mere subsequent control of the decision.   The Court continued:   [Translation]   "Such a subsequent control would in any event suffice if, regardless of its nature as a merely subsequent control which does not provide for the reopening of proceedings, the court effectively (and not merely theoretically and in the abstract) has the possibility to convince itself of the correctness of the solution in regard to the facts and the law applied and its judgment on the matter is capable of being enforced.   Such a control falls to the Austrian Administrative Court in the light of an understanding of the Administrative Court Act which is oriented towards the Constitution."   [German]   "Eine solche nachprüfende Kontrolle müsste jedenfalls dann genügen, wenn sie ungeachtet ihres bloss nachprüfenden, nicht auf einer Neudurchführung des Verfahrens beruhenden Charakters dem Gericht - nicht bloss theoretisch und abstrakt, sondern im Ergebnis auch wirksam - Gelegenheit gibt, sich von der Richtigkeit der Lösung sowohl der Tat - wie der Rechtsfrage zu überzeugen und sein Urteil über die Sache auch durchzusetzen, wie dies bei einem an der Verfassung orientierten Verständnis des Verwaltungsgerichtshofgesetzes dem österreichischen VwGH aufgetragen ist."   IV.      Proceedings before the Administrative Court           According to Article 130 para. 1 of the Federal Constitution the Administrative Court reviews allegations of unlawfulness of an administrative decision.   Article 130 para. 2 excludes the review of the exercise of discretionary powers within the scope of the law.   The Administrative Court is also competent to deal with complaints that the administrative authority has violated its duty to take a decision (Article 132).           Section 41 of the Administrative Court Act provides, insofar as relevant:   [Translation]   "(1)   Insofar as the Administrative Court does not find unlawfulness on account of a lack of jurisdiction of the authority against which the appeal is directed or on account of a violation of procedural provisions (Section 42 para. 2 [2] and [3]) ..., the Court must examine the contested decision on the basis of the facts as accepted by the authority against which the appeal is directed within the framework of the alleged complaint ...   If it is of the opinion that reasons would be relevant for the decision on the unlawfulness of the contested decision ... which were so far not known to a party, it must hear the parties thereupon and, if necessary, adjourn the proceedings.   (2) In the cases of Article 132 of the Federal Constitution the Court must determine the facts, taking into account Section 36 para. 9."   [German]   "(1)   Der Verwaltungsgerichtshof hat, soweit er nicht Rechtswidrigkeit wegen Unzuständigkeit der belangten Behörde oder wegen Verletzung von Verfahrensvorschriften gegeben findet (§ 42 Abs. 2 Z 2 und 3) ... den angefochtenen Bescheid auf Grund des von der belangten Behörde angenommenen Sachverhaltes im Rahmen der geltend gemachten Beschwerdepunkte ... zu überprüfen.   Ist er der Ansicht, dass für die Entscheidung über die Rechtswidrigkeit des Bescheides in einem der Beschwerdepunkte ... Gründe massgebend sein könnten, die einer Partei bisher nicht bekanntgegeben wurden, so hat er die Parteien darüber zu hören und wenn nötig, eine Vertagung zu verfügen.   (2)   In den Fällen des Art. 132 B-VG hat der Gerichtshof den Sachverhalt unter Bedachtnahme auf § 36 Abs. 9 festzustellen."           As regards the decisions of the Administrative Court, Section 42 para. 2 of the Administrative Court Act provides, insofar as relevant:   [Translation]   "(2) The contested decision must be quashed   1.    on account of the unlawfulness of its content,   2.    on account of unlawfulness due to the lack of      jurisdiction of the authority against which the      appeal is directed,   3.    on account of unlawfulness due to a violation of      procedural provisions because      a)   the authority against which the appeal is          directed has determined the facts on an          important point contrary to the          case-file, or      b)   the facts need to be supplemented on an          important point, or      c)   procedural provisions have been disregarded          which, if taken into consideration by the          authority against which the appeal is          directed, would have led to a different          decision of the authority."     [German]   "(2) Der angefochtene Bescheid ist aufzuheben   1.    wegen Rechtswidrigkeit seines Inhaltes,   2.    wegen Rechtswidrigkeit infolge Unzuständigkeit      der belangten Behörde,   3.    wegen Rechtswidrigkeit infolge Verletzung von      Verfahrensvorschriften, und zwar weil      a) der Sachverhalt von der belangten Behörde         in einem wesentlichen Punkt aktenwidrig         angenommen wurde oder      b) der Sachverhalt in einem wesentlichen         Punkt einer Ergänzung bedarf oder      c) Verfahrensvorschriften ausser acht gelassen         wurden, bei deren Einhaltung die belangte         Behörde zu einem anderen Bescheid hätte         kommen können."           The proceedings before the Administrative Court consist of an exchange of written observations between the parties (Section 36) and an oral hearing of their legal arguments (Sections 39 and 40).   The parties have a right to request a hearing (Section 39, para. 1 [1]).           The decision of the Administrative Court is either to dismiss the complaint or to quash the decision complained of (Section 42 para. 1).   If the complaint is allowed the authorities are obliged to establish immediately with the legal means available to them the legal situation which corresponds to the view of the Administrative Court in the particular case (Section 63).   COMPLAINTS           The applicants complain under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention that in the building proceedings they did not benefit from a procedure in conformity with this provision before an independent and impartial tribunal having full jurisdiction on questions of law and fact.   In particular they complain about the fact that no tribunal issued a development programme for the community in which the applicants' land is situated.           With reference to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicants complain that Section 16b of the Tyrolean Regional Planning Act constituted an unjustified restriction of the use of property.   THE LAW   1.       The applicants complain that in the proceedings in which they were involved they did not have access to an independent and impartial tribunal as guaranteed by Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.   This provision states, insofar as it is relevant:   "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ..."     a)       The applicants complain in particular that they did not have access to an independent and impartial tribunal which would have issued a development programme.           The applicants submit that the proceedings at issue concerned their right to build a shopping centre and subsequently their right to practise gainful activities in the shopping centre.   In their view their civil rights have been determined in the building proceedings.           The Commission recalls that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention applies only to disputes over "rights and obligations" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law.   Article 6 (Art. 6) does not in itself guarantee any particular content for "rights and obligations" in the substantive law of the Contracting States (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Lithgow and others judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A No. 102, p. 70, para. 192).           The Commission further recalls that the Court found that there was a dispute over a "right" if an unlawful prolongation of the building prohibition by an area plan is alleged (Eur. Court H.R., Allan Jacobsson judgment of 25 October 1989, Series A No. 163, pp. 19 - 20, para. 67 et seq.), if an unlawful amendment of a building plan is alleged (Eur. Court H.R., Mats Jacobsson judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A No. 180, p. 12 et seq., para. 30 et seq.), or if the applicant claims a right to an exemption from the building plan (Eur. Court H.R., Skärby judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A No. 180, p. 36 et seq., para. 27 et seq.).   The Commission recalls that these judgments dealt with building proceedings in which the applicants could claim an individual right which was affected by a building or area plan.           The Commission notes that in the present case the applicants do not have an individual right to enforce the adoption of a development programme by the Provincial Government which allowed the designation of land as a "special area for shopping centres" in a particular community. According to Austrian law the adoption of a development programme only concerns the competence of that community to designate land for particular purposes.           The Commission therefore concludes that the question whether a development programme should have been issued did not involve a "determination of (the applicants') civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.           It follows that, insofar as the applicants complain that in the proceedings concerning the issue of a development programme they did not have access to an independent and impartial tribunal, the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   b)       The applicants also direct their complaints under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention against the proceedings concerning the building permit, the use permit and the demolition order.           The Commission does not find it necessary to decide whether there was a serious dispute over a right within the meaning of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.   It notes that the applicants applied for a permit to build on their land, applied for a permit to use the building and finally were ordered to demolish their building and that the applicants had a right in general to build on their land.           Assuming that the applicants could claim a "right" to build on their land and to use their building, this "right" would be of a "civil" nature for the purposes of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) (see e.g. the above-mentioned Allan Jacobsson judgment, p. 20, para. 73).           The Commission therefore accepts that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention is applicable to the building proceedings at issue.           With regard to the proceedings concerning the building permit the applicants complain under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) that they did not have access to an independent and impartial tribunal.           The Commission considers that the proceedings before the Mayor, the Town Council and the Provincial Government do not satisfy the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. However, these requirements would be satisfied if subsequently the applicants' civil rights had been determined by a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1). Such a determination would require that the court could undertake a comprehensive examination of all relevant questions of law and fact (see Ettl and others v. Austria, Comm. Report 3.7.1985, para. 78 with further references).           In the present case the Commission need not examine in the abstract whether the Administrative Court meets the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   The Commission notes in particular that in the proceedings before the Administrative Court the establishment and the assessment of the facts were not in dispute between the parties, and there was no need therefore for a judicial determination thereof.   In particular it was not in dispute that the effected construction deviated from the building permit.   Rather the decisive and disputed question raised by the first applicant within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court was whether or not the request for building a shopping centre complied with the requirements of the area zoning plan.   This was, however, solely a question of the application of the law.   It is not contested by the applicants that the Administrative Court was competent to undertake this examination.           As a result, the Commission considers that the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention have been complied with. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.       The applicants also allege a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) in that Section 16b of the Tyrolean Regional Planning Act constituted an unjustified restriction of their use of property.           Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) 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."             In fact, Section 16b of the above-mentioned law made the designation of a land as an area for shopping centres subject to the issue of a development programme.           The Commission considers, assuming that this restriction was an interference with the applicants' right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, that it was justified under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) (see, mutatis mutandis, the above-mentioned Allan Jacobsson judgment, p. 16, para. 54).           The Commission notes that the restriction was lawful. Moreover, the purpose of the provisions - to facilitate land planning - is in accordance with the general interest as envisaged in Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1-2).           As to the proportionality the Commission finds that it cannot be considered disproportionate to the requirements of the legitimate aim of land planning if the Provincial Government is given competence to decide in which community there should be a shopping centre.           As a result this part of the application is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.   Deputy Secretary to the Commission    Acting President of the Commission             (J. RAYMOND)                               (J.A. FROWEIN)