CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 1 décembre 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 }                            AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 16568/90                       by E.F. and S.F.                       against Austria         The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 1 December 1992, the following members being present:              MM.    C.A. NØRGAARD, President                  J.A. FROWEIN                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs.   G. H. THUNE            Sir    Basil HALL            MM.    F. MARTINEZ                  C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                    Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 9 April 1990 by E.F. and S.F. against Austria and registered on 8 May 1992 under file No. 16568/90;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having regard to:   -      the Government's observations dated 7 February 1992;   -      the applicant's observations in reply dated 4 June 1992;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:       THE FACTS         The applicants are Austrian citizens born in 1941 and 1937 respectively.   They are husband and wife and together they farm land belonging to their son.   The applicants hold the land in usufruct (Fruchtgenussrecht).   The applicants are represented before the Commission by Mr. H. Vana, a lawyer practising in Vienna.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.     Particular circumstances of the case                                      I.         On 28 April 1988 the Minister for Economic Affairs (Bundesminister für wirtschaftliche Angelegenheiten) granted to an electricity supply company a permit to build and to operate provisionally a 380 KV power line between Vienna and the Austrian-Hungarian border leading through the land of the applicants' son.   This decision was served neither on the applicants nor on their son, who were also not called to participate in the proceedings.         The applicants lodged a complaint against this decision with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) after their lawyer coincidentally came to know the decision during the expropriation proceedings.   The applicants alleged a violation of Article 6 of the Convention because they did not have a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal.         On 26 September 1989 the Constitutional Court, with reference to its constant case-law concerning Article 6 of the Convention, refused to deal with the case as it lacked prospect of success.         On 30 October 1989 the Constitutional Court referred the complaint to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof).         On 26 June 1990 the Administrative Court quashed the contested decision insofar as a permit had been granted concerning the land of the applicants' son, on the ground that, while the applicants were parties in the proceedings according to the law, they had not been informed of the proceedings.         On 1 October 1990 the Minister for Economic Affairs, after conducting an oral hearing with the applicants, again granted a permit to build and to operate provisionally the power line over the land of the applicants' son.         The applicants lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court. They submitted that the decision was unlawful for breaches of procedural rules as it contradicted Sections 6 and 7 of the Power Lines Act (Starkstromwegegesetz).   In particular, the applicants contended that the authority refused to hear an expert proposed by them.   Moreover, they alleged a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in that they did not have a fair hearing before a tribunal.         On 23 April 1991 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicants' complaint on the grounds that they did not have a right to a particular expert, that the other expert opinions in the proceedings were conclusive and that the applicants themselves could have submitted an expert opinion within a reasonable time if they had so requested. However, they had failed to do so.   With regard to the allegations concerning Article 6 of the Convention, the Administrative Court found as follows:   [Translation]         "Finally, the applicants allege that certain provisions of the       Power Lines Act are unconstitutional.   Their reasoning is that,       in the light of Article 6 of the Convention, no interference may       take place with their property rights without court proceedings.       The respondent authority rightly points out in its counter-       pleadings that according to the recent case-law of the       Constitutional Court (cf. Constitutional Cases No. 11760), it is       permissible for administrative authorities to expropriate, and       for compensation claims to be determined initially by       administrative authorities, as here, where the administrative       proceedings are followed by proceedings before a court.   Indeed,       the Constitutional Court, in its decision of 30 October 1989,       which preceded the Administrative Court's decision of 26 June       1990 (..), expressed no disquiet as to this legal position.   The       Administrative Court shares the legal opinion of the       Constitutional Court as thus expressed."   [German]         "Abschließend behaupten die Beschwerdeführer eine Verfassungs-       widrigkeit von Bestimmungen des Starkstromwegegesetzes mit der       Begründung, daß im Hinblick auf Art. 6 MRK ohne gerichtliches       Verfahren nicht in ihre dinglichen Rechte eingegriffen werden       dürfte.   Diesem Vorbringen hält die belangte Behörde in ihrer       Gegenschrift zutreffend entgegen, daß auch nach der neueren       Rechtsprechung des Verfassungsgerichtshofes (vgl. VfSlg. 11760)       eine Enteignung durch Verwaltungsbehörden zulässig ist und über       Entschädigungsansprüche zunächst Verwaltungsbehörden entscheiden       dürfen, wenn, wie dies auch hier der Fall ist, eine sukzessive       Gerichtszuständigkeit vorgesehen ist.   Tatsächlich hat ja auch       der Verfassungsgerichtshof in dem dem Erkenntnis des Verwaltungs-       gerichtshofes vom 26. Juni 1990 vorausgehenden Beschluß vom       30. Oktober 1989, Zl. B 1066/89-5, keine Bedenken gegen die hier       gegebene Rechtslage geäußert.   Der Verwaltungsgerichtshof teilt       die damit zum Ausdruck kommende Rechtsanschauung des       Verfassungsgerichtshofes."         The decision of the Administrative Court was served on the applicants on 31 May 1991.                                      II.         By decision of 3 March 1990 the Minister for Economic Affairs ruled that the construction and the operation of the power line in question were in the public interest and necessary.   In expropriation proceedings he granted the construction of the power line over the land of the applicants' son and ordered the payment of compensation in the amount of AS 10,139.64 to the applicants' son.         The applicants applied for a judicial decision to the Neusiedl District Court.   This application had the effect that the Minister's decision was quashed automatically.   The expropriation proceedings are still pending.     Relevant domestic law         According to Section 6 (1) of the 1968 Power Lines Act (Starkstromwegegesetz 1968) anyone intending to build and run an electric power line has to apply for a permit.         Section 7 of the Power Lines Act provides for the conditions under which a permit is to be granted.   Section 7 (1), as far as relevant, reads as follows:   [Translation]         "The authority is required to grant the building and operation       permit if the electric power line does not contravene the public       interest in supplying the population or sections of it with       electric energy.   In the permit the authority shall ensure, by       imposition of conditions, that the electric power lines are in       accordance with these requirements ..."     [German]         ""Die Behörde hat die Bau- und Betriebsbewilligung zu erteilen,       wenn die elektrische Leitungsanlage dem öffentlichen Interesse       an der Versorgung der Bevölkerung oder eines Teiles derselben mit       elektrischer Energie nicht widerspricht.   In dieser Bewilligung       hat die Behörde durch Auflagen zu bewirken, daß die elektrischen       Leitungsanlagen diesen Voraussetzungen entsprechen..."       COMPLAINTS         The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that in the building permit proceedings under the Power Lines Act, which were decisive for their civil rights, they did not have a fair hearing before a tribunal.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 9 April 1990 and registered on 8 May 1990.         On 15 October 1991 the Commission decided to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government and to request the parties' observations on its admissibility and merits.         The respondent Government submitted their observations on 7 February 1992 and the applicants' representative submitted observations in reply on 4 June 1992.       THE LAW         The applicants allege a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention which provides, so far as relevant, as follows:         "1.   In the determination of his civil rights and obligations       ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an       independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ..."         The Government submit that a mere permit to build and to operate a power line does not interfere directly with private rights within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   In particular, a further right of way (under Section 11 or Section 18 of the Power Lines Act) is necessary before the power line may be erected. The fact that a "Section 7 permit" is necessary before a Section 11 or a Section 18 right can be obtained is irrelevant.   In the alternative, the Government submit that, if Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) is applicable to the proceedings in the present case, then the scope of review by the Administrative Court, taken together with the review by the Constitutional Court, is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article 6 (Art. 6) in cases of this kind.         The applicant, referring to the Bodén judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 27 October 1987   (Series A no. 125-B), considers that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention does apply to the present proceedings.   He also considers that the scope of review   by the Administrative and Constitutional Courts is not sufficient to comply with Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, as the Administrative Court may not take evidence itself to supplement preliminary proceedings.   It had only to check whether there has been a sereious procedural error.    Moreover, the Constitutional and Administrative courts do not have the power to take decisions on the merits, but may only examine the validity of the decisions of administrative authorities.         Having regard to the submissions of the parties, and to the case- law of the Convention organs, the Commission considers that the application raises serious issues of fact and law, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits.         For these reasons, the Commission by a majority         DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging       the merits of the case.   Secretary to the Commission            President of the Commission        (H. C. KRÜGER)                          (C. A. NORGAARD)