CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 6 avril 1994

.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. 19742/92                     by F.N                     against Austria          The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 6 April 1994, the following members being present:             MM.   A. WEITZEL, President                C.L. ROZAKIS                F. ERMACORA                E. BUSUTTIL                A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK           Mrs. J. LIDDY           MM.   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                B. MARXER                B. CONFORTI                N. BRATZA                I. BÉKÉS                E. KONSTANTINOV             Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the 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 23 December 1991 by F.N. against Austria and registered on 23 March 1992 under file No. 19742/92;        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 applicant is an Austrian citizen living in Mistelbach. He is represented by Mr. Erich Proksch, a lawyer practising in Vienna.        It follows from the applicant's statements and the documents submitted that the applicant is the owner of farm land which he has leased out as he is disabled.        On 31 July 1985 the Lower Austrian District Agricultural Authority (Agrarbezirksbehörde) issued a consolidation plan for the community in which the applicant's agricultural property is situated.   The applicant was allotted new plots of land in exchange for his previous property.        Considering that the land compensation which he had received was not adequate, the applicant lodged an appeal which was rejected on 2 December 1986 by the Lower Austrian Provincial Land Reform Board (Landesagrarsenat).        The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint alleging, inter alia, a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention, on the ground that his appeal had not been decided by an independent and impartial tribunal.   He also invoked his right to the protection of property.        On 26 September 1987 the Austrian Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) refused to deal with the matter stating that in view of its constant jurisprudence it did not disclose any appearance of violations of constitutional rights and offered no prospects of success.   The Constitutional Court referred the matter to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof).        This court rejected the applicant's appeal on 11 June 1991.        According to the findings of the court the applicant's original property comprised 10 plots with a total surface of 5,7166 Ha., evaluated at 13.871,16 points.   In return he was awarded four plots with a total surface of 5,7087 Ha. which were evaluated at 13.834,03 points.        Insofar as the applicant had alleged that the yield (Betriebserfolg) of the compensation parcels would be lower than that of his original property, the court first pointed out that while some of the compensation parcels allotted to the applicant were qualitatively less valuable, others were more valuable than his former plots and there was nothing to show that the point value had been wrongly calculated by the authorities.   In addition the court stated that the applicant had failed to show at the lower instance in a substantiated manner that in fact the yield of the new property would be inferior to that of his former property.        Insofar as the applicant had complained of the size and shape of one of the compensation parcels, his arguments were considered to be unfounded.   COMPLAINTS        The applicant submits that his claim for compensation constitutes a civil right within the meaning of Article 6.   He considers that the agrarian authorities which rejected his complaints against the consolidation plan cannot be considered to be an impartial tribunal established by law.        The applicant furthermore alleges a violation of Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   THE LAW   1.    The applicant has invoked Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention arguing that he did not have access to an independent tribunal which could have examined his claim for compensation.        In the present case the applicant's complaints were in last instance determined by the Austrian Administrative Court.   This court found that the applicant had received adequate compensation parcels and that his complaints about the consolidation plan were unfounded.   The applicant has not shown, nor even alleged, that the Administrative Court was in his case in any way limited in its competence to examine the issues raised by the applicant's case.   It has furthermore not been shown that the Administrative Court's findings are inconsistent with any provisions of the Austrian legal order or are arbitrary for any other reason.        Consequently there is, in the particular circumstances of the case, no appearance of a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention and to this extent the application therefore has to be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded (see No. 16261/90, Dec. 13.6.93, unpublished).   2.    The applicant has further complained that his right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) was violated, alleging that he received inadequate land compensation.        The Commission refers however, to the above mentioned findings of the Austrian Administrative Court according to which the applicant's complaints about inadequate compensation were considered to be unfounded.   It follows for the reasons stated above that this part of the application likewise has to be rejected as being 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 First Chamber         President of the First Chamber        (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                         (A. WEITZEL)