CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 10 février 1993

.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. 17196/90                       by F.M. ZUMTOBEL Gesellschaft mbH & Co. KG,                          Franz Martin ZUMTOBEL & Hans PRAMSTALLER                       against Austria           The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 10 February 1993, the following members being present:                MM.   S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H. G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS              Mrs. G. H. THUNE              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   J.-C. GEUS                Mr.   K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Second Chamber         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 24 July 1990 by F.M. ZUMTOBEL Gesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, Franz Martin ZUMTOBEL and Hans PRAMSTALLER against Austria and registered on 25 September 1990 under file No. 17196/90;         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 first applicant is a private company incorporated under Austrian law. The second applicant, an Austrian citizen residing in Dornbirn, is the general partner and manager of the first applicant. The third applicant is the owner of real property which he let to the first and second applicant for business purposes. Before the Commission the applicants are represented by Wilfried Ludwig Weh, a lawyer practising in Bregenz.   Particular circumstances of the case         On 17 March 1987 the Mayor of Nußdorf-Debant granted a permit to build two shops of approximately 360 square metres each to the third applicant as owner of the land.         On 20 November 1987, after the construction works had been terminated, the third applicant applied for a subsequent partial modification of the building permit, which now should cover one big sales-room of approximately 661 square metres.         On 7 June 1988 the Mayor refused the modification of the building permit on the ground that the modification was contrary to Section 16b of the Tyrol Regional Planning Act (Raumordnungsgesetz). By the same decision the third applicant was ordered to erect the missing partition wall between the two sales-rooms before 7 July 1988.         On 20 June 1988 the third applicant lodged an appeal with the Local Council (Gemeinderat), which on 16 August 1988 dismissed the applicant's appeal.         In its decision the Council found in particular that the requested modification would lead to a shopping centre which could not be erected on the applicant's land, as this was not designated as   a special area for shopping centres (Sonderfläche für Einkaufszentren).         On 15 September 1988 the Tyrolean Provincial Government (Landesregierung) dismissed a further appeal finding that the requested modification was contrary to the area zoning plan.         On 29 October 1988 the third applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). He submitted that the decision violated his freedom of commerce (Erwerbsfreiheit) and Article 6 of the Convention. He also contended that its legal basis (Section 16b of the Tyrolean Regional Planning Act) was contrary to the distribution of legislative powers (Art. 10 - 15 of the Federal Constitution) and to the principle of equality.         On 28 November 1988 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the complaint for lack of prospect of success and referred the case to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof).         On 9 November 1989 the Administrative Court dismissed the third 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.         Relevant domestic law and practice   I.       Building legislation         According to Section 31 of the Tyrolean Building Regulations (Bauordnung) as in force at the relevant time the authority had to decide on a building request by a written decision.   Paragraph 3 of Section 31 stated:   [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."     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:         [Translation]         "(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 sales-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 in regard 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 (Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz) 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 (Verwaltungsgerichtshofgesetz) 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 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 constitutes 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       ..., 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 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 and that they 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.   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 Local 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 Austrian 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 examine this question.         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).         The Commission further 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.       Secretary to the Second Chamber      President of the Second Chamber                (K. ROGGE)                          (S. TRECHSEL)