CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 30 juin 1992

.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 }                        EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                          Application No. 12235/86                   Firma F.M. ZUMTOBEL and Martin ZUMTOBEL                                   against                                   AUSTRIA                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                          (adopted on 30 June 1992)                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                  PAGE I.     INTRODUCTION       (paras. 1 - 18) ........................................     1         A.    The application            (paras. 2 - 4) ..................................       1         B.    The proceedings.            (paras. 5 - 13) .................................       1         C.    The present Report            (paras. 14 - 18) ................................       2   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS       (paras. 19 - 50) .....................................       3         A.    The particular circumstances of the case            (paras. 19 - 38) ................................       3              a.     Proceedings before the Provincial Government                  (paras. 19 - 24) ..........................       3              b.     Proceedings before the Constitutional Court                  (paras. 25 - 28) ..........................       4              c.     Proceedings before the Administrative Court                  (paras. 29 - 36) ..........................       4              d.     Compensation proceedings                  (paras. 37 - 38) ..........................       6         B.    Relevant domestic law and practice            (paras. 39 - 50) ................................       7              a.     As to the expropriation                  (paras. 39 - 41) ..........................       7              b.     Interpretation by the Austrian Constitutional                  Court of the scope of Article 6 para. 1 of the                  Convention                  (paras. 42 - 43) ..........................       7              c.     Jurisdiction of the Austrian Constitutional                  and Administrative Courts                  (paras. 44 - 49) ..........................       8              d.     Position of experts                  (para. 50) ................................       10   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION       (paras.   51 - 98) ....................................       11         A.    Complaints declared admissible            (para. 51)   .....................................       11         B.    Points at issue            (para. 52) ......................................       11         C.    Applicability of Article 6 para. 1 of the            Convention            (paras. 53 - 59) ................................       11         D.    Compliance with Article 6 para. 1 of the            Convention            (paras. 60 - 94) ................................       12              a.     Access to court                  (paras. 61 - 77) ..........................       12              Conclusion            (para. 77) ......................................       14              b.     Lack of an oral hearing                  (paras. 78 - 83) ..........................       14              Conclusion            (para. 83) ......................................       15              c.     Position of experts                  (paras. 84 - 89) ..........................       15                    Conclusion                  (para. 89) ................................       16              d.     Consultation of documents                  (paras. 90 - 94) ..........................       16                    Conclusion                  (para. 94) ................................       16         E.    Recapitulation            (paras. 95 - 98).................................       16   DISSENTING OPINION OF MM. S. TRECHSEL, J.-C. SOYER, C.L. ROZAKIS and L. LOUCAIDES ..............................       17   CONCURRING OPINION OF Sir Basil HALL .......................       18   APPENDIX I:       HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ................       19   APPENDIX II:      DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY .............       20   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 first applicant was, when filing the application, a commercial firm at Dornbirn in Austria, established as a limited partnership (Kommanditgesellschaft) under Austrian law.   The second applicant, an Austrian citizen, resides at Dornbirn.   When filing the application, he was the general partner (Mehrheitsgesellschaft) of the first applicant and its manager (Geschäftsführer).   Meanwhile, the first applicant is completely owned by the second applicant.   Before the Commission the applicants are represented by Mr. W.L. Weh, a lawyer practising in Bregenz.   3.     The application is directed against the Republic of Austria whose Government are represented by their Agent, Ambassador Helmut Türk, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   4.     The applicants complain under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention that in the expropriation proceedings in which they were involved they had no access to a court with full jurisdiction on questions of law and fact.   The applicants also complain under this provision of unfairness of the proceedings.   B.     The proceedings   5.     The application was introduced on 10 June 1986 and registered on 13 June 1986.   6.     At that time proceedings before the Austrian Administrative Court were pending.   On 6 March 1989 the Commission decided to adjourn further examination of the admissibility of the application until the Administrative Court had given its decision.   7.     The Administrative Court gave its decision on 22 September 1989. The applicants filed comments thereupon on 4 December 1989.   8.     On 2 April 1990 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government and invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application limited to the issues under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   9.     The Government's observations were received by letter dated 23 July 1990 and the applicants' observations by letter dated 11 October 1990.   10.    On 29 May 1991 the Commission decided to invite the parties to a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the applicants' complaints under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   11.    The hearing took place on 15 October 1991.   The Government were represented by Mr. W. Okresek, Head of Department at the Federal Chancellery in Vienna, and by Mr. F. Haug of the International Law Department in the Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs in Vienna.   The applicants were represented by their lawyer, Mr. W.L. Weh.   The second applicant and Mr. E. Girardi, signing clerk (Prokurist) for the first applicant, were also present.   12.    On 15 October 1991 the Commission declared the application admissible in so far as it related to the complaint mentioned in para. 4 above and inadmissible as to the remaining complaints.   13.    After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case.   In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.     The present Report   14.    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. S. TRECHSEL, Acting President                   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   15.    The text of this Report was adopted on 30 June 1992 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   16.    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.   17.    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.   18.    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   a.     Proceedings before the Provincial Government   19.    The facts of the case concern the construction in Vorarlberg of the L 52, a new Provincial Road (Landesstrasse) as a bypass (Umfahrung) in the area of the Rankweil municipality.   20.    In the course of the planning procedure the construction was discussed inter alia in separate landscape proceedings concerning the compatibility of the proposed stretch of road with environmental requirements.   The project was open for consultation, and possible objection, by the public in the Rankweil municipal office from 1 October to 1 November 1984.   The project also concerned the applicants' property though they filed no objection thereto.   21.    On 28 February 1985 the Provincial Road Administration (Landesstrassenverwaltung) of the Vorarlberg Provincial Government (Landesregierung) instituted expropriation proceedings in relation to 2,140 m² real property of the first applicant.   The expropriation was based on the Vorarlberg Provincial Road Act (Landesstrassengesetz) and was to enable construction of the L 52.   As a result, the first applicant's property, formerly a continuous area of some 55,000 m², was to be divided into two smaller areas of approximately 20,000 m² and 30,000 m² respectively.   The property of other owners was only to be marginally affected.   22.    Expropriation proceedings were then conducted before the administrative authorities of the Provincial Government.   The authorities consulted several experts.   During these proceedings the first applicant filed several requests for the taking of evidence, concerning inter alia a report of the Court of Audit (Rechnungshofsbe- richt);   the views of an expert opinion on the protection of the environment; the decision of the Feldkirch, Meiningen and Rankweil municipalities on the stretch of road to be built; and an opinion by the environmental department of the Provincial Government.   23.    On 25 June 1985 a hearing was held at which the first applicant's representative was present as well as the chairman and three experts, i.e. for road construction, landscape protection and road traffic "of the Office of the Provincial Government" ("vom Amt der Landesregie- rung").   At the hearing, the experts submitted their opinions and made further submissions thereupon.   The experts for road construction and for road traffic submitted in particular that the proposed stretch of road was important for the traffic between Rankweil and Feldkirch, as the existing connection between the two communities led through densely built areas.   24.    On 13 February 1986 the Office (Amt) of the Vorarlberg Provincial Government ordered the expropriation.   The first applicant was granted compensation amounting to 620 AS per m².   In its decision the Office rejected a request of the first applicant to be fully informed of the planning procedure as being irrelevant.   The request to consult a neutral road traffic expert on the necessity of the road was dismissed on the ground that the particular official expert was not biased in favour of the Provincial Road Administration and had delivered a convincing report.   b.     Proceedings before the Constitutional Court   25.    Against this decision the first applicant lodged a complaint (Beschwerde) with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof).   26.    With reference inter alia to Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention, the first applicant submitted inter alia that an administrative expropriation procedure subject to the ultimate control of the Administrative and the Constitutional Courts was not in conformity with this provision and violated its right of access to a court with full jurisdiction on both questions of fact and law. The first applicant further alleged a violation of the principle of equality of arms due to the fact that the authority only heard the official experts attached to it and refused to hear any independent experts.   27.    On 27 November 1987 the Constitutional Court, in non-public proceedings under Article 144 para. 2 of the Federal Constitution (Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz), decided not to deal with the complaint as it lacked prospects of success.   28.    In its decision the Constitutional Court referred to its previous case-law concerning the authorities' discretion when fixing the outline of a road and concerning Article 6 of the Convention.   The Court found no indication of unconstitutionality of applicable legal rules.   The case did not appear to raise specific constitutional issues, but only questions of lawfulness to be decided by the Administrative Court.   c.     Proceedings before the Administrative Court   29.    Against the decision of the Provincial Government of 13 February 1986 the first applicant also filed a complaint with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof).   Therein it invoked in essence the same arguments as before the Constitutional Court, this time alleging violations of procedural and substantive law.   The first applicant maintained that its private interest in using the property outweighed the public interest inasmuch as only little traffic was to be expected on the new road.   The first applicant also requested the appointment of an expert.   30.    By decision of 22 September 1989 the Administrative Court dismissed the first applicant's complaint.   31.    In its decision the Administrative Court stated that it had no doubts concerning the organisation of the authorities competent to decide on expropriations for road construction purposes.   It refused to refer this matter to the Constitutional Court, as raising an issue under Article 6 of the Convention.   The Administrative Court accepted that a party to expropriation proceedings for road construction purposes could contest the appropriateness of the project.   It considered that Section 44 para. 1 of the Vorarlberg Provincial Road Act required the balancing of contradicting interests, namely traffic, and landscape protection, while also taking into account the economic suitability of the planned road.   32.    The Court found that the first applicant had failed to demonstrate that the contested decision was unlawful.   The decision states:         [Translation]         "Against the background of the object of examination falling to       the Administrative Court according to Section 41 of the       Administrative Court Act it cannot be regarded as unlawful that       the respondent authority - having regard to the interests of       traffic - based its decision on the relevant facts in particular       that no other, more expedient solution - than the one proposed       for the new construction of the L 52 in the proposed road       construction project - was possible.   As can be seen from the       facts established in the contested decision, the respondent       authority took the view that it was in the interests of traffic       to remove through-traffic from the Rankweil-Brederis built-up       area, while at the same time this would create a useful       contribution to the existing road network in the Feldkirch-       Rankweil area."         [German]         "Vor dem Hintergrund der dem Verwaltungsgerichtshof nach Abs. 41       VwGG gestellten Prüfungsaufgabe kann es nicht als rechtswidrig       erkannt werden, wenn die belangte Behörde   - unter dem       Gesichtspunkt der Interessen des Verkehrs - ihrem Abspruch als       maßgebenden Sachverhalt zugrunde legte, daß eine andere,       zweckmäßigere Lösung   - als der vorgesehene Neubau der L 52 im       gegenständlichen Baulos - nicht möglich sei.   Wie sich aus den       Feststellungen im angefochtenen Bescheid ergibt, ist die belangte       Behörde bei ihrem Abspruch davon ausgegangen, daß es im Interesse       des Verkehrs gelegen sei, den Durchzugsverkehr aus dem       besiedelten Gebiet von Rankweil - Brederis herauszuführen, wobei       auch eine sinnvolle Ergänzung des bestehenden Straßennetzes im       Raum Feldkirch - Rankweil geschaffen werde."   33.    The Administrative Court further explained why, in its view, no doubts arose in respect of the evidence provided by the official experts.   The Court also noted that the contested decision took account of environmental protection when assessing the interests at stake.   It had been lawful to limit the proceedings to the part of the road which affected the first applicant's property and to conduct the expropriation proceedings before the adoption of the ordinance about the provincial road.   34.    With regard to the first applicant's complaint about the lack of independence of the experts in the expropriation proceedings the Court noted that the expropriating authority was in principle required to consult its own official experts.   The merely general reference to the problem of dependency did not suffice to prove partiality, which had to be examined in each individual case.   35.    In respect of the first applicant's complaint that it could not consult all the documents the Court noted that the first applicant had not been a party to the landscape proceedings for which reason it was not permitted to consult the respective case-file.   With regard to a report of the Court of Audit and other documents the Court found nothing therein which was relevant to the first applicant's case.   The Court also noted that the expert opinion of the independent traffic expert Be. had actually been included in the expropriation file, though the first applicant could not claim a right to receive photocopies therefrom.   36.    The Court then addressed the first applicant's request for the preparation of a new expert opinion by a neutral traffic expert by referring to a ruling of the enlarged Panel of the Administrative Court as follows:         [Translation]         "Accordingly, the Administrative Court is barred from taking       evidence which the administrative authority may have failed to       take, and from taking evidence itself in order to supplement the       facts that have been ascertained during investigations.   However,       the Administrative Court may take evidence to determine whether       there has been an essential procedural defect and is therefore       authorised to take evidence for examining the question whether       a procedural defect is essential or whether the incriminated       authority might have arrived at a different decision by avoiding       the alleged procedural defect; the Administrative Court may       resort to these measures also in order to control the assessment       of evidence.   With regard to the above explanations concerning       the weighing up of interests by the respondent authority and the       factual basis by which they are carried, the Administrative Court       sees no reason to accede to the request to take evidence."         [German]         "Danach ist es dem Verwaltungsgerichtshof verwehrt, in der von       der Verwaltungsbehörde behandelten Sache anstelle der belangten       Behörde eine von dieser allenfalls versäumten Beweisaufnahme       nachzuholen und in Ergänzung des Ermittlungsverfahrens zur       Feststellung des Sachverhaltes selbst Beweise aufzunehmen.   Der       Verwaltungsgerichtshof kann aber Beweise aufnehmen, um zu prüfen,       ob ein wesentlicher Verfahrensmangel vorliegt, und er ist demnach       berechtigt, zur Prüfung der Frage, ob ein Verfahrensmangel       wesentlich ist oder ob die belangte Behörde unter Vermeidung des       gegebenen Verfahrensmangels zu einem anderen Bescheid hätte       kommen können, eine Beweisaufnahme durchzuführen; dies auch zum       Zwecke der Kontrolle der Beweiswürdigung.   Im Hinblick auf die       obigen Darlegungen zur Interessensabwägung der belangten Behörde       und der diese tragenden Sachverhaltsgrundlagen sieht sich der       Verwaltungsgerichtshof jedoch nicht zur beantragten       Beweisaufnahme veranlaßt."   d.     Compensation proceedings   37.    Meanwhile, the first applicant requested the Feldkirch District Court (Bezirksgericht) to determine the compensation for the expropriated land.   On 17 December 1987 the latter ordered the Provincial Government to pay to the first applicant the total sum of 9,963,032.50 AS within 14 days.   38.    Upon appeal (Rekurs), the Feldkirch Regional Court (Landesgericht) reduced in its decision of 24 March 1988 the total sum to 4,560,000 AS.   The first applicant's further appeal (Revisionrekurs) was dismissed by the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) on 6 October 1988.   B.     Relevant domestic law and practice   a.     As to the expropriation   39.    According to Section 5 of the Vorarlberg Provincial Road Act the Provincial Government may declare by Ordinance (Verordnung) that roads or parts thereof become Provincial Roads (Landesstrassen), even if they have not yet been built.   According to para. 2 of Section 5, the Provincial Government must classify all roads as Provincial Roads which are necessary for the traffic between communities; those roads shall be considered necessary which are the only immediate road connection from one community to the next and which can also be used by lorries.   40.    In practice, Section 5 implies that if real property is expropriated for the construction of a Provincial Road, the Provincial Government must enact an Ordinance containing a short description of the road and its approximate length.   Thus, the Provincial Government express their intention to construct the road.   The Ordinance does not describe in detail the stretch to be constructed, and the persons whose property shall be expropriated have the right in the expropriation proceedings to call in question the adequateness of the proposed stretch.   41.    According to Section 44 para. 1 of the Provincial Road Act an expropriation in order to construct a Provincial Road is only admissible if another stretch of road, or its maintenance, is not possible which is more adequate from the point of view of traffic, economy and protection of the environment.   b.     Interpretation by the Austrian Constitutional Court of the scope       of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention   42.    The Austrian Constitutional Court pronounced itself on the applicability and scope of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention to proceedings originating before Austrian administrative authorities in its decision of 14 October 1987 (B 267/86, VfSLG 11500/1987).   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 undertook a mere subsequent control of the decision.   43.    The decision of the Constitutional Court continues:         [Translation]         "Such a subsequent control would in any event have to suffice if,       regardless of its nature as a merely subsequent control which did       not provide for renewed proceedings, the court effectively (and       not merely theoretically and in the abstract) has the possibility       to convince itself of the correctness of the solution as well as       of the facts and the law applied and can also execute its       judgment on the matter.   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."   c.     Jurisdiction of the Austrian Constitutional and Administrative       Courts   44.    According to Article 144 of the Austrian Federal Constitution (Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz) an appeal can be filed with the Constitutional Court in which the applicant can allege a violation of his constitutional rights.   He can also complain that his rights have been violated on account of an unlawful ordinance, an unconstitutional Act, or an unlawful international treaty.   45.    According to Article 130 para. 1 of the Federal Constitution the Administrative Court will review allegations of unlawfulness of an administrative decision.   According to Section 130 para. 2, "no unlawfulness exists where legislation refrains from the establishment of a binding rule on an administrative authority's conduct, leaving the determination of such conduct to the authority itself, and the authority has made use of this discretion in the spirit of the law" ("Rechtswidrigkeit liegt nicht vor, soweit die Gesetzgebung von einer bindenden Regelung des Verhaltens der Verwaltungsbehörde absieht und die Bestimmung dieses Verhaltens der Behörde selbst überläßt, die Behörde aber von diesem freien Ermessen im Sinne des Gesetzes Gebrauch gemacht hat").   The Administrative Court is also competent to deal with complaints that the administrative authority has violated its duty to take a decision (Article 132).   46.    Section 41 of the Administrative Court Act provides, in so far as relevant:         [Translation]         "(1)   In so far 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."       [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."   47.    As regards the decisions of the Administrative Court, Section 42 para. 2 of the Administrative Court provides, in so far 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 in particular 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 require 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, could 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."   48.    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]).     49.   Where the Administrative Court has granted an appeal and has quashed the decision of the administrative authority, Section 63 para. 1 of the Administrative Court Act provides that the "administrative authorities are obliged in the case concerned with the legal means at their disposal promptly to restore the legal situation corresponding to the legal opinion expressed by the Administrative Court" ("sind die Verwaltungsbehörden verpflichtet, in dem betreffenden Fall mit den ihnen zu Gebote stehenden rechtlichen Mitteln unverzüglich den der Rechtsanschauung des Verwaltungsgerichtshofes entsprechenden Rechtszustand herzustellen").   d.     Position of experts   50.    With regard to the position of experts in expropriation proceedings, Section 52 para. 1 of the Act on General Administrative Procedure (Allgemeines Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz) provides that if in such cases evidence by experts is necessary, "official experts must be employed who are attributed to the authority or are at their disposal" ("so sind die der Behörde beigegebenen oder zur Verfügung stehenden amtlichen Sachverständigen [Amtssachverständige] beizuziehen").   Section 53 refers to Section 7 according to which administrative organs must renounce office in matters concerning inter alia their family members or "if there are other important reasons which may raise doubts as to their full impartiality" ("wenn sonstige wichtige Gründe vorliegen, die geeignet sind, ihre volle Unbefangenheit in Zweifel zu ziehen").                       III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.     Complaints declared admissible   51.    The Commission has declared admissible the applicants' complaints under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention concerning the access to, and the fairness of the proceedings before, the Administrative Court.   B.     Points at issue   52.    Accordingly, the issues to be decided are:   -      whether Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention applied to the proceedings at issue; and if so,   -      whether there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   C.     Applicability of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention   53.    The Commission must first examine whether Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention applied to the proceedings at issue.   54.    Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention provides, in so far as relevant:              "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 ..."   55.    The Government submit that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention is not applicable to expropriation proceedings which do not relate to civil rights.   Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) is directed at the traditional core areas of private law, and it cannot be said that the practice of the Convention States has changed this scope. Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) does not include relations between the individual and the general public as only the effects of these relations concern civil rights.   56.    The Commission considers that the proceedings before the Administrative Court in which the applicants were involved concerned a genuine and serious dispute ("contestation") over the expropriation of real property.   Moreover, the applicants were the owners of the real property; hence, the dispute related to the actual existence of a "right" (see Eur. Court H.R., Bodén judgment of 27 October 1987, Series A no. 125-B, p. 39 et seq., paras. 28 et seq.)   57.    The "civil" character of the right at issue is not to be interpreted solely by reference to the respondent State's domestic law. It is enough that the outcome of the proceedings should be decisive for private rights and obligations (see Eur. Court H.R., Allan Jacobsson judgment of 25 October 1989, Series A no. 163, p. 20, para.72).   58.    In the present case, the outcome of the Administrative Court proceedings in which the applicants were involved was decisive for the very substance of the applicants' private rights and obligations in that these proceedings determined whether or not they remained owners of the real property concerned.   The applicants' right was therefore of a "civil nature" for the purposes of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   59.    Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention was therefore applicable to the proceedings at issue.   D.     Compliance with Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention   60.    The Commission must consequently examine the applicants' complaints under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention concerning the access to, and the proceedings before, the Administrative Court.   a.     Access to court   61.    The Commission has first addresse