Application No. 11796/85

Konrad and Klara WIESINGER

against

AUSTRIA

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 6 June 1990)

                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                               Page

I.      INTRODUCTION

        (paras. 1 - 13) ......................................   1

        A.      The application

                (paras. 2 - 4)  ..............................   1

        B.      The proceedings

                (paras. 5 - 8) ...............................   1

        C.      The present Report

                (paras. 9 - 13) ..............................   2

II.     ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

        (paras.  14 - 72) ....................................   3

        A.      The particular circumstances of the case

                (paras. 14 - 47) .............................   3

                1.  Institution of land consolidation

                proceedings and provisional transfer of land

                (paras. 14 - 16) .............................   3

                2.  Amendment of the area-zoning plan

                (paras. 17 - 19) .............................   3

                3.  Interim proceedings taken in order to

                adjust the consolidation proceedings to the

                amended area-zoning plan (paras. 20 - 29) ....   4

                4.  Interim proceedings taken in order to

                speed up the consolidation proceedings

                (paras. 30 - 36) .............................   6

                5.  The consolidation plan (paras. 37 - 39) ...   7

                6.  The appeal proceedings (paras. 40 - 42) ...   7

                7.  Parallel civil proceedings (paras. 43 -45).   8

                8.  Proceedings concerning building permits

                (paras. 46 - 47) .............................   8

        B.      Relevant domestic law

                (paras. 48 - 72) .............................   9

                1.  The land reform legislation

                (paras. 48 - 63) .............................   9

                2.  Provisions on the authorities' duty

                to decide within a reasonable time

                (paras. 64 - 67) .............................  11

                3.  Area-zoning plans (paras. 68 - 72) ........  11

III.    OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

        (paras. 73 - 129) ....................................  13

        A.      Points at issue

                (para. 73) ...................................  13

        B.      Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

                (length of proceedings) (paras. 74 - 108) ....  13

                Conclusion (para. 109) .......................  18

        C.      Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the

                Convention (paras. 110 - 121) ................  18

                Conclusion (para. 122) .......................  20

        D.      Article 14 of the Convention

                (paras. 123 - 125) ...........................  20

                Conclusion (para. 126) .......................  21

        E.      Recapitulation

                (paras. 127 - 129) ...........................  21

APPENDIX I      :  HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ................  22

APPENDIX II     :  DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY .............  23

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 applicants are Austrian citizens, born in 1935 and 1936

respectively, who live on their farm in Hartkirchen, Upper Austria.

They were represented by Mr.  Peter Wiesauer, a lawyer practising in

Linz.

3.      The application is directed against Austria.  The respondent

Government were represented by their Agent, Mr.  Helmut Türk, Head of

the International Law Department of the Federal Ministry of Foreign

Affairs.

4.      The case concerns agricultural land consolidation proceedings.

The applicants complain under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention that

in these proceedings their civil rights were not determined within a

reasonable time;  under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention

that the proceedings involved an unjustified interference with their

property rights in that the land provisionally assigned to them did

not correspond to the value of their original land; and under Article 14

of the Convention that they were treated less favourably than the

provisional new owners of their former land.

B.      The proceedings

5.      The application was introduced on 12 August 1985 and

registered on 8 October 1985.  On 29 February 1988 the Commission

decided in accordance with Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of

Procedure to give notice of the application to the respondent

Government and to invite them to present before 6 May 1988 their

observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of the

application.  Following an extension of the time-limit, these

observations were submitted on 26 May 1988.  The applicants submitted

observations in reply on 20 July 1988.

6.      On 14 October 1988 the Commission granted legal aid to the

applicants.

7.      The application was again examined by the Commission on

10 July 1989 when the above complaints were declared admissible while

a further complaint under Article 6 was declared inadmissible.  On

29 August 1989 the admissibility decision was communicated to the

parties who were invited to submit further observations on the merits

by 16 October 1989.  The applicants submitted further observations on

13 October 1989, the Government on 17 October 1989.

8.      After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in

accordance with Article 28 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself

at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly

settlement.  Negotiations took place between August 1989 and May 1990.

In the light of the parties' reactions, the Commission now finds that

there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.

C.      The present Report

9.      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.  C. A. NØRGAARD, President

                  J.A. FROWEIN

                  S. TRECHSEL

                  G. SPERDUTI

                  E. BUSUTTIL

                  G. JÖRUNDSSON

                  A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

                  A. WEITZEL

                  J. C. SOYER

                  H. G. SCHERMERS

                  H. DANELIUS

                  G. BATLINER

             Mrs.  G. H. THUNE

             Sir  Basil HALL

             MM.  F. MARTINEZ

                  C.L. ROZAKIS

             Mrs.  J. LIDDY

10.     The text of this Report was adopted on 6 June 1990 and

is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of

Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.

11.     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.

12.     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.

13.     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

        1.  Institution of land consolidation proceedings

            and provisional transfer of land

14.     Agricultural land consolidation proceedings (Flurbe-

reinigungsverfahren) under the Upper Austrian Agricultural Land

Planning Act (Flurverfassungs-Landesgesetz) were instituted for the

area concerned by the Agricultural District Authority (Agrarbezirks-

behörde) of Linz on 22 July 1975.

15.     The valuation of the lands included in the consolidation

proceedings was fixed by a decision of 13 August 1976 against which

the applicants did not appeal.

16.      On 13 October 1978 the authority ordered the provisional

transfer (vorläufige Übernahme) of lands according to a draft

consolidation plan (Neueinteilungsplan) to which the applicants had

consented.  The applicants were thereby required to transfer five

parcels comprising an area of 25,206 m² of agricultural land to other

parties.  Pursuant to Section 22 of the Provincial Act the latter

acquired conditional property rights subject to confirmation of the

attribution of these parcels in the final consolidation plan

(Flurbereinigungsplan).  The applicants acquired corresponding rights

in their compensation parcels (Abfertigungsgrundstücke).  They did

not appeal against this measure.

        2.  Amendment of the area-zoning plan

17.     On 1 September 1978 the municipal council (Gemeinderat) of

Hartkirchen adopted an area-zoning plan (Flächenwidmungsplan) according

to which the applicants' former parcels continued to be designated as

agricultural land although certain adjoining parcels had been

redesignated as building plots (Bauland) in 1976 and 1978.  The plan

was approved by the Provincial Government (Landesregierung) of Upper

Austria on 10 October 1978.

18.     Upon request of the new owners, the municipal council

subsequently decided on 16 November 1979 to amend the above zoning

plan and to also designate the five parcels which had earlier belonged

to the applicants as building plots.  The amendment of the zoning plan

was approved by the Regional Government on 16 April 1980 and became

final on 6 May 1980.

19.     The applicants state that contrary to the law they were in no

way associated to these proceedings and that they learnt thereof only

when construction work started on the land, the new owners having

divided the parcels and having sold certain plots in respect of which

building permits were issued.  The Government submit that, in view of

the redesignation of the adjoining land, the applicants must have been

aware since 1976 that a redesignation of their former land was likely

to occur as well.  The applicants contest this.

        3.  Interim proceedings taken in order to adjust the

            consolidation proceedings to the amended area-zoning plan

        a)  Applicants' request for exclusion of

            their parcels from the consolidation area

            -----------------------------------------

20.     On 10 August 1982 the applicants applied to the Agricultural

District Authority to exclude the parcels in question from the

consolidation proceedings and return them to the applicants.  They

claimed that these parcels were now to be regarded as lands of special

value (Flächen mit besonderem Wert) which according to the applicable

legislation (Section 19 para. 10 of the Provincial Act) must in

principle be left to the previous owners.  In the alternative the

applicants requested the attribution of equivalent compensation

parcels designated as building plots, and in the further alternative

the adjudication of monetary compensation (Geldwertentschädigung).  At

the same time they demanded compensation (Schadenersatz) for the loss

of interest (Zinsverlust) allegedly suffered by the fact that they had

not themselves been able to sell the parcels in question as building

plots.  On the basis of a square metre price of AS 400 and an interest

rate of 10% they provisionally claimed AS 1,600,000 in respect of two

years since the change of designation.

21.     The Agricultural District Authority refused to deal with the

application.  In a letter of 17 January 1983 it referred to Section 20

para. 6 of the Provincial Act according to which compensation claims

can be raised only within a period of six months after the

consolidation plan has become final.  The authority observed that the

consolidation plan had not yet been issued although it was shortly to

be expected.

22.     In the absence of a decision within the statutory time limit,

the applicants on 8 August 1983 requested a transfer of jurisdiction

(Devolution) to the higher authority, i.e. the Provincial Land Reform

Board (Landesagrarsenat), pursuant to Section 73 of the Code of General

Administrative Procedure (Allgemeines Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz).

23.     The Provincial Board took its decision on 17 November 1983.

Insofar as the applicants had asked for a decision excluding their

former parcels from the consolidation area, the Board assumed

jurisdiction, but rejected the applicants' claim as unjustified.  The

Board did not allow a transfer of jurisdiction as regards the

applicants' further claims.  It considered that the District Authority

had rightly refused to take a decision on the attribution of other

compensation parcels and on the issue of financial compensation.

24.     The applicants addressed an appeal to the Supreme Land Reform

Board (Oberster Agrarsenat) which, however, declared the appeal

inadmissible on 1 February 1984.  This decision was subsequently

confirmed by decisions of the Constitutional Court (Verfassungs-

gerichtshof) of 27 June 1984 and of the Administrative Court

(Verwaltungsgerichtshof) of 25 September 1984.

25.     However, the applicants had appealed to the Administrative

Court also immediately from the Provincial Board's above decision of

17 November 1983.  This appeal was in part allowed on 20 March 1984.

The Administrative Court confirmed the Provincial Board's decision

insofar as it had refused to exclude the applicants' former parcels

from the consolidation proceedings.  However, it quashed the

Provincial Board's decision insofar as the Board had refused to assume

jurisdiction concerning the issues of alternative compensation parcels

and monetary compensation.

        b)  Financial compensation

            ----------------------

26.     Accordingly the Provincial Board gave a new decision on these

issues on 18 October 1984.  It observed that the damage claimed was not

of a nature for which Section 20 of the Provincial Act provided

monetary compensation (i.e. temporary disadvantages caused by the

consolidation proceedings).  The applicants' claim for financial

compensation conflicted with Section 19 para. 10 of the Provincial Act

according to which lands of special value must in principle be

compensated by land of the same kind.  The provisional transfer of

lands having become final, it was not possible to change the

distribution of parcels pending the proceedings.  However, the

provisional transfer did not prejudge the final consolidation plan

which had to take into account the entitlement which the applicants

might have to be compensated in land of special value in view of

the redesignation of their former land (Sections 15 and 16 of the

Provincial Act).  This concerned not necessarily all land which

they had contributed because an area-zoning plan was still under

consideration at the competent local authority.  The agricultural

authorities had no jurisdiction concerning that matter.

27.     The Provincial Board also noted that it was envisaged to

designate the applicants' compensation parcels as a building area.  It

observed that details of this plan were not yet known.  In any event

questions concerning the designation of the land in the area-zoning

plan were preliminary questions (Vorfragen) for the agricultural

authorities which could adopt the final consolidation plan only when

these preliminary questions had been settled.  Only thereafter would

the Provincial Board be competent to examine in appeal proceedings

whether or not the applicants had received lawful compensation

parcels.  Their request to decide this question immediately was

therefore inadmissible.

28.     The applicants appealed against this decision to the

Constitutional Court.  However, on 24 June 1985 the Court refused to

deal with the case as it found no relevant issue under constitutional

law (Article 144 para. 2 of the Federal Constitution).  The Provincial

Board's decision did not violate the constitutional right of property,

and the right to a decision by the lawful judge could only be violated

if the (Federal) Agricultural Proceedings Act (Agrarverfahrensgesetz)

had been wrongly applied.  The question whether or not this had been

the case could be decided by the Administrative Court to which the

case was referred according to the applicants' request.

29.     The Administrative Court rejected the applicants' complaints

by a decision of 19 November 1985.  It observed that by the

provisional transfer of lands the applicants had received compensation

parcels according to their own wishes whose designation as

agricultural land had not been changed.  Therefore they had not

suffered any temporary disadvantages in respect of which they could

claim financial compensation.  It was true that their former parcels

had subsequently been designated as a building area.  However,

this change of designation was to be taken into account in the final

consolidation plan.  It was not possible to change the provisional

transfer.  Section 68 of the Code of General Administrative Procedure

which the applicants had invoked was not applicable since a

modification of the decision on the provisional transfer would

interfere with the rights of the new owners.

        4.  Interim proceedings taken in order to speed up

            the consolidation proceedings

30.     In the main proceedings the applicants had in the meantime, on

17 January 1984, requested a transfer of jurisdiction from the

Agricultural District Authority to the Provincial Land Reform Board.

They had referred to Section 7 (a) of the Agricultural Proceedings Act

which required the agricultural authorities to issue the final

consolidation plan within a period of three years from the provisional

transfer of lands.

31.     However, by a decision of 7 June 1984 the Provincial Board

refused to assume jurisdiction.  It acknowledged that it was the purpose

of Section 7 (a) of the Agricultural Proceedings Act to ensure that the

consolidation plan was issued not later than three years after the

provisional transfer had become final.  However, having regard to

Section 73 of the Code of General Administrative Procedure this

statutory time limit could be considered as violated only if the delay

was exclusively the fault of the competent authority.

32.     In the Provincial Board's view no fault lay with the

Agricultural District Authority.  It had continuously been engaged

in the preparation of the consolidation plan, but its work had been

delayed by (a) the planning of a new federal road across the

consolidation area;  (b) litigation in the applicants' case and in

the case of another party during which the file had been with various

other authorities during lengthy periods; and (c) the proceedings

concerning the modification of the area-zoning plan.

33.     The Provincial Board observed that the latter proceedings fell

within the jurisdiction of the local authority and concerned a preliminary

issue (Vorfrage) to the Agricultural District Authority's decision.

That authority had contacted the local authority with a view to

expediting the proceedings even before the applicants' request for a

transfer of jurisdiction.  However, the Agricultural District Authority

could not take a decision until the area-zoning proceedings were

completed.  A suspension (Aussetzen) of the consolidation proceedings

was legally justified in these circumstances and therefore the

Agricultural District Authority could not be held responsible for the

delay.

34.     The applicants' appeal against this decision was rejected by

the Supreme Land Reform Board on 6 March 1985.  It confirmed the

Provincial Board's holding that a transgression of the statutory three

years time limit in Section 7 (a) of the Agricultural Proceedings Act

was unlawful only if it was exclusively the fault of the authority.

There was no fault if there existed an unsurmountable obstacle.  The

fact that proceedings concerning the modification of the area-zoning

plan were still pending constituted such an obstacle, since the

Agricultural District Authority was required to take into account the

area-zoning and building plans (Section 12 para. 2 of the Act).  The

latter were excluded from the competence of the Agricultural District

Authority which could not reasonably act before the decision of the

competent local authority had been given.  The local authority had

indicated on 14 May 1984 that it was considering measures which would

permit the allotment of land designated as a building area to the

applicants.  In these circumstances it was justified that the

Agricultural District Authority had suspended its proceedings.

35.     The applicants appealed to the Constitutional Court which,

under Article 144 para. 2 of the Federal Constitution, again refused

to deal with the matter.  Its decision of 23 November 1985 invoked the

same reasons as the decision of 24 June 1985 (see para. 28 above).

36.     The case was referred to the Administrative Court which on

8 April 1986 likewise rejected the applicants' complaints.  It

confirmed the decision of the Supreme Land Reform Board according to

which the Provincial Board's refusal to assume jurisdiction had been

justified at the relevant time having regard to the obstacle which

prevented the Agricultural District Authority from taking a decision.

The Court added that the applicants' objections against the land

compensation which they had received by the provisional transfer (i.e.

the fact that this land was designated only for agricultural purposes,

and that its area was insufficient) concerned the determination of

lawful compensation parcels and thus a matter reserved for consideration

in connection with the final consolidation plan.

        5.  The consolidation plan

37.     The Agricultural District Authority issued this plan by a

decision of 16 July 1986.  By this decision the situation created by

the provisional transfer was changed concerning the applicants to whom

part of their former land (9,680 m²) was returned.  On the whole they

obtained 19,909 m² designated as a possible future building area

(Bauerwartungsland).

38.     It was further noted that already in 1974 they had received

monetary compensation in respect of certain parcels (agricultural,

building, and future building areas) which they had been required to

contribute for the construction of the new federal road.

39.     Their request to be compensated on the ground that the value

of their former parcels had increased as a consequence of their

reclassification was rejected.  The authority observed that before the

provisional transfer these parcels had been designated as agricultural

land and the applicants had accordingly obtained other agricultural

land in exchange.  The subsequent change of classification was taken

into account in the determination of the final compensation parcels.

The applicants had not suffered any temporary damage and were not

entitled to any financial compensation.

        6.  The appeal proceedings

40.     The applicants appealed against this decision to the

Provincial Land Reform Board, claiming that the compensation parcels

assigned to them were less valuable than their original parcels.  They

alleged having suffered a loss of more than four million AS.

41.     In view of that appeal, the authorities attempted to reach a

settlement with the parties concerned.  First, this was tried by the

Agricultural District Authority in the procedure under Section 7

para. 4 of the Federal Agricultural Proceedings Act (Agrarverfahrens-

gesetz).  For this purpose, a total of twelve meetings, hearings and

investigations took place between 20 October 1986 and 8 July 1987.

Subsequently, the Provincial Board also tried to secure an agreement

between the parties involved.  A total of eighteen hearings and

investigations took place between 28 September 1987 and 28 August 1989

with the participation of the parties, the local authority, the road

administration and the supervisory authority competent for changes in

designation of land.  In this connection the Provincial Board applied

to the local authority for certain land which it intended to assign to

the applicants to be redesignated as a building area (industrial site).

42.     As eventually no agreement could be reached, the Provincial

Board held a hearing on 28 September 1989.  On 24 January 1990 the

Board in part allowed the applicants' appeal against the consolidation

plan of 16 July 1986 (cf. paras. 37 - 39 above), allotting them, in

particular, a certain part of their former (redesignated) land and

other land which had been redesignated as an industrial site or whose

redesignation was envisaged.  The applicants' claim for financial

compensation was again rejected.  On 9 February 1990 the applicants

lodged an appeal against this decision.  They claimed that it was

incompatible with the aim of the consolidation proceedings to create

more and more building land instead of improving the agricultural

structure.  In any event the compensation parcels assigned to them

were insufficient as their merely formal redesignation as building

land did not correspond to the economic realities.  The applicants

also challenged the refusal of financial compensation.  This appeal

is still pending with the Supreme Land Reform Board.

        7. Parallel civil proceedings

43.     In connection with the above proceedings the applicants also

tried to seize the civil courts in order to prevent construction work

on their former property which in the official land register (Grundbuch)

was still registered in their name.

44.     They brought an action in the Regional Court (Kreisgericht) of

Wels against a couple who had bought part of this land as a building

plot, seeking an injunction which would prevent them from starting

construction work.  However, on 16 October 1985 the Regional Court

denied its jurisdiction (Unzulässigkeit des Rechtsweges).  It observed

that Section 102 of the Provincial Act transferred to the agricultural

authorities, for the duration of the consolidation proceedings, the

jurisdiction concerning all property disputes in the consolidation

area.

45.     On 21 February 1986 the Linz Court of Appeal (Oberlandes-

gericht) quashed this decision on the applicants' appeal.  However, on

19 June 1986 the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) restored it,

thus finally confirming that the civil courts had no jurisdiction in

the matter.

        8.  Proceedings concerning building permits

46.     The applicants asked for permission to build two fodder silos

on the compensation parcels assigned to them near their farmhouse.

However, the permission was refused on the ground that they were only

provisional owners of the land in question.

47.     As already mentioned (para. 19 above), several other parties

were granted building permits on the new land provisionally assigned

to them.

B.      Relevant domestic law

        1.  The land reform legislation

48.     According to Article 12 of the Federal Constitution, the

legislative competences in land reform matters are split between the

Federation and the Provinces.  The Federation regulates the procedure

(Agricultural Proceedings Act/Agrarverfahrensgesetz 1950) and the

organisation of the competent authorities (Agricultural Authorities

Act/Agrarbehördengesetz 1950 as amended in 1974).  As regards

substantive law, the Federation only lays down the principles

(Agricultural Land Planning (General Principles) Act/Flurverfassungs-

Grundsatzgesetz 1951 as amended in 1977) while the details are

regulated by the Provinces.

49.     In Upper Austria, the relevant law is the Provincial

Agricultural Land Planning Act (Flurverfassungs-Landesgesetz) of 1979

which replaced an earlier Act of 1972.  The proceedings in the present

case were instituted under the 1972 Act, on the basis of which the

provisional transfer of lands was also ordered.  However, the

subsequent main proceedings were governed by the 1979 Act.

50.     Under Section 1 para. 1 of the 1979 Act, the aim of consolidation

proceedings is the improvement or restructuration of the conditions in

which land is owned, used and managed in the rural world and economy,

by redistribution and development of agricultural and forestry land in

accordance with modern economic and management principles, in the

interest of achieving and maintaining an efficient agricultural sector.

51.     Under Section 3 the proceedings are instituted ex officio by

an ordinance (Verordnung) which determines the consolidation area.

Under Section 2 para. 1 this area is delimited, having regard to the

local and economic conditions, in such a manner that the objectives

and purposes of the consolidation can be achieved as fully as

possible.

52.     Under Section 2 para. 2 all parcels of land situated in this

area are subject to consolidation.  They include agricultural and

forestry land as defined in Section 1 para. 3 of the Act (i.e.

including the relevant buildings and farmyards) and non-agricultural

or forestry land as defined in Section 15 para. 3.  The latter land

may be subjected to consolidation only with the consent of the owners.

53.     Under Section 4 para. 2 land which is not needed for the

purposes of consolidation may subsequently be excluded from the

consolidation area by an administrative decision.

54.     The inclusion of land in the consolidation area has the effect

of creating restrictions on its use while the proceedings are pending.

During this period any change of use requires the approval of the

agricultural authority.  Special provisions (Sections 94 et seq. of

the Act) stipulate that entries in the land register incompatible with

the aims of the consolidation proceedings are inadmissible.  Under

Section 97 para. 1 it is for the agricultural authority to decide on

compatibility with the consolidation proceedings.

55.     The institution of consolidation proceedings furthermore has

the effect that the jurisdiction concerning all factual and legal

circumstances which might be relevant in these proceedings, including,

in particular, the jurisdiction concerning disputes on ownership and

tenure of land in the consolidation area, passes to the agricultural

authorities; the authorities which would otherwise have jurisdiction

in those matters are no longer competent (Section 102).

56.     The agricultural authority first determines the state of

occupation of the lands concerned (Section 11) and assesses their

value (Section 12), taking into account, in particular, the relevant

area-zoning and building plans (Section 12 para. 2).  The result of

this procedure is stated in an administrative decision (Besitzstands-

und Bewertungsplan, Section 13) which is subject to appeal.

57.     Under Section 14 para. 1 changes in the value of the land

which occur in the course of the proceedings have to be taken into

account.  If necessary the authority proceeds to a supplementary

assessment of the value (Nachbewertung).

58.     Under Section 19 of the Act the parties are entitled to obtain

parcels of equal value to those which they have contributed, or to be

re-allocated their previous parcels if they cannot be replaced by land

of equal value.  The latter applies, in particular, to land of special

value (Section 19 para. 10 (a)) including building plots (Section 12

para. 6).  The applicants submit that, in contrast to the Agricultural

Land Planning Acts of other Provinces, the Upper Austrian Act does not

refer to a special category of land intended to be used for building

purposes in the future (Bauerwartungsland).

59.     The compensation claims of the parties are, in principle, to

be satisfied by the allocation of compensation parcels according to

the above rules (Section 19 para. 10).  Financial compensation is

provided for only in the form of equalisation payments within certain

limits and in respect of temporary disadvantages caused by the

consolidation proceedings (Section 20).  Claims under the latter

heading can be raised within six months after the consolidation plan

has become final (Section 20 para. 6).

60.     The re-allocation of lands is effected by a consolidation plan

under Section 21 (Zusammenlegungsplan) or Section 29 (Flurbereinigungs-

plan), a special type of administrative decision (cf.  Section 7 of the

Agricultural Proceedings Act).  The plan takes into account the

principles of regional planning and for this purpose the competent

local and provincial authorities are heard (Section 15 of the

Provincial Act).

61.     An appeal against the consolidation plan is always open to the

Provincial Land Reform Board, while a further appeal to the Supreme

Land Reform Board can be lodged only if certain conditions are

fulfilled (Section 7 of the Agricultural Authorities Act).  A final

decision of either of these Boards can be challenged before the

Administrative Court (Section 7a of the Agricultural Authorities Act

read in conjunction with Article 133 para. 4 of the Federal

Constitution) and before the Constitutional Court (Article 144 of the

Federal Constitution).

62.     However, under Section 22 of the Provincial Act (in the

versions of 1972 and 1979) the agricultural authority may order the

provisional transfer (vorläufige Übernahme) of compensation parcels

already at an earlier stage.  The ownership of these parcels is

transferred conditionally; it will lapse if the parcel in question is

allotted to another party in the final consolidation plan.

63.     The original decision ordering a provisional transfer of lands

can be challenged before the Provincial Land Reform Board and

subsequently before the Administrative and Constitutional Courts.

However, under the case-law of the competent authorities it cannot

be subsequently amended in the procedure under Section 68 of the Code

of General Administrative Procedure (Allgemeines Verwaltungsverfahrens-

gesetz), as this provision is only applicable when the rights of other

parties are not affected.

        2. Provisions on the authorities' duty

           to decide within a reasonable time

64.     Section 73 para. 1 of the Code of General Administrative

Procedure stipulates that the authorities are obliged to decide on

applications of the parties or on appeals without any unnecessary

delay and, at the latest, within a time-limit of six months, unless a

different time-limit is provided for in special regulations.

65.     This provision is also applicable in agricultural proceedings.

However, Section 7a of the Agricultural Proceedings Act fixes a

special time-limit for consolidation plans.  They should be adopted

not later than three years after the provisional transfer of

compensation parcels has become final.

66.     If no decision is served within the above time-limits, the

party may request the higher authority to assume jurisdiction

(Devolution).  This authority will then be competent to take the

decision in place of the lower authority, unless it finds that the

delay is not exclusively the latter's fault (Section 73 para. 2).

67.     The higher authority shall take its decision within six months

(Section 73 para. 3).  Otherwise a request to assume jurisdiction may

be made to the higher authority of the next level, or in case the

matter has already been brought before the highest administrative

authority, the party may complain to the Administrative Court of that

authority's failure to act (Säumnisbeschwerde, Article 132 of the

Federal Constitution).  The Administrative Court will then become

competent to take a decision on the merits.

        3. Area-zoning plans

68.     In Austrian law area-zoning plans (Flächenwidmungspläne) and

any amendments to them are regarded as ordinances (Verordnungen) even

if they only concern individual property.  Accordingly they are not

issued in normal administrative proceedings and the persons affected

are not parties to the proceedings.

69.     However, as all ordinances, area-zoning plans are required to

be based on law (Article 18 of the Federal Constitution).  In the

present case the relevant legislation is the Upper Austrian Regional

Planning Act (Raumordnungsgesetz).  It obliges the competent local

authorities (Gemeinden) to take into consideration planning

proceedings of neighbouring local authorities and other public law

corporations as well as regionally significant measures of other

planning organisations (Section 15 para. 10).  This also includes the

planning projects of the agricultural authorities.

70.     The lawfulness of ordinances can be challenged before the

Constitutional Court under Article 139 of the Federal Constitution.

However, the right of individual application to this Court is limited

to cases where a person is directly affected by an ordinance without

the latter being implemented by a judicial or administrative decision.

71.     The case-law has established that area-zoning plans cannot be

directly challenged by the affected individuals in the procedure under

Article 139 of the Federal Constitution if it is possible to institute

an administrative procedure.

72.     This is the case, in particular, where the area-zoning plan is

the basis for the granting or withholding of building permits.  The

persons affected are expected to assert their rights in the

administrative proceedings concerning the building permit.  In these

proceedings they can allege that the underlying area-zoning plan has

no legal basis or is contrary to the applicable legislation.

Ultimately this question can be brought before the Constitutional

Court by a constitutional complaint under Article 144 of the Federal

Constitution or by a request for norm control proceedings made by the

Administrative Court under Article 89 para. 2 and Article 139 of the

Federal Constitution.

III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A.      Points at issue

73.     The following points are at issue in the present case:

a)      whether there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention, in that the applicants' civil rights and

obligations were not determined within a reasonable time;

b)      whether there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol

No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention;

c)      whether there has been a violation of Article 14 (Art. 14) of the

Convention.

B.      Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (length of

proceedings)

        1)  Applicability of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)

74.     The first sentence of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention

reads as follows:

"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."

75.     The Commission considers, as do the parties, that this

provision is applicable to the agricultural land consolidation

proceedings in question.  It refers, in particular, to the European

Court of Human Rights judgments of 23 April 1987 (Series A no. 117:

case of Ettl and Others, p. 16 para. 32; case of Erkner and Hofauer,

p. 60 para. 62; Poiss case, p. 102 para. 48).

        2) The period to be taken into consideration

76.     The parties disagree as to the date when the period to be

considered under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention started.

77.     According to the applicants this was the date of the

provisional transfer on 13 October 1978.

78.     According to the Government there was no dispute on the

applicants' civil rights before 10 August 1982 when the applicants

requested either the exclusion of their land from the consolidation

area or the granting of compensation.  The Government furthermore

consider that after this date there were several distinct disputes,

each of which was determined within a reasonable time.

79.     The Commission finds that no dispute arose before August 1982

because until that time the applicants accepted the authorities'

approach and did not appeal.  On 10 August 1982, having learnt of the

redesignation of their former land, they made the above-mentioned

request.  They thereby contested the justification of the measures

taken by the authorities concerning their former property and their

own compensation claim.  From this moment they were involved in a

serious and genuine dispute of direct importance for their civil

rights and obligations.

80.     Contrary to the Government's submission the Commission does not

find it possible to examine each stage of the subsequent proceedings

separately as if the various stages were not related to each other.

The various interim proceedings (on the exclusion of the applicants'

land from the consolidation area, on their claim for financial

compensation, and finally on the relevance of parallel planning

proceedings) in fact concerned preliminary questions to the main issue

to be decided, namely the compensation to which the applicants were

entitled in view of the redesignation of their former land for

building purposes.

81.     This main issue has remained pending ever since the dispute

arose in August 1982.  In accordance with the approach taken by the

Court in the above-mentioned Erkner/Hofauer and Poiss cases (loc.

cit.) the proceedings must therefore be regarded as a whole.

82.     The total period to be examined is therefore at present seven

years and ten months (August 1982 - June 1990).

        3) The criteria to be applied

83.     The reasonableness of the length of proceedings has to be

assessed in each case according to the particular circumstances and

having regard to the criteria enunciated in the case-law (cf.  Eur.

Court H.R., Zimmermann and Steiner judgment of 13 July 1983, Series A

no. 66, p. 11 para. 24).  In this context, the Court and Commission have

regard, inter alia, to the complexity of the factual or legal issues

raised by the case, to the conduct of the applicants and the competent

authorities and to what is at stake for the former.  Only delays

attributable to the State may justify a finding of a failure to comply

with the "reasonable time" requirement (see, mutatis mutandis, Eur.

Court H.R., König judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, pp. 34 et

seq. paras. 99, 102-105, 107-111; Buchholz judgment of 6 May 1981,

Series A no. 42, p. 15 para. 49; Erkner and Hofauer judgment, loc.

cit., p. 62 para. 66; Poiss judgment, loc. cit., p. 104 para. 55).

        4) The complexity of the case

84.     Agricultural land consolidation proceedings are by their

nature complex.  Having regard to their particularities they will, as

a rule, last longer than most other proceedings on civil rights (cf.

No. 9616/81, Erkner and Hofauer v. Austria, Comm. Report 24.1.86,

paras. 96-97, and Eur. Court H.R. judgment, loc. cit., p. 62 para. 67;

No. 9816/82, Poiss v. Austria, Comm. Report 24.1.86, paras. 95-96, and

Eur. Court H.R. judgment, loc. cit., p. 104 para. 56).

85.     However, the land consolidation proceedings in the present

case were not as such more complex than usual in this type of

proceedings.  The fact that following the redesignation of the

applicants' former land the authorities were faced with almost

unsolvable problems appears to be due to their own fault.  They failed

to consider in time in what way the applicants' right to compensation

parcels would be affected by the redesignation.  That the case became

much more complex as a result cannot be held against the applicants.

        5) The applicants' conduct

86.     The applicants were not responsible for the new situation

created by the redesignation of their former land.  By their various

remedies they reacted to this new situation and the consequences

drawn by the authorities.  In the Commission's view they cannot be

blamed for this although their remedies remained mostly without

success.

87.     The Government submit that the applicants must have known of

the plan for the redesignation of their land already at a much earlier

stage.  The applicants deny this.

88.     The Commission recalls that the area-zoning plan of 1978

(para. 17 above) did not affect the applicants' former property.  The

designation of this property as building plots was effected by the

amended plan of 16 November 1979 which became final on 6 May 1980.

The applicants could not be parties to the relevant proceedings and

were not associated to them in any other way.  As the Provincial

Agricultural Land Planning Act does not refer to future building plots

as a special category of land (cf. para. 58 above), the applicants had

no legal basis to raise any claims under this Act before their land

had actually been redesignated as building plots.

89.     The applicants raised such claims in August 1982 after

construction work had begun on their former land.  This must have

followed administrative proceedings on the granting of building

permits to the new provisional owners of the land in question to which

the agricultural authorities were associated.  The applicants could

theoretically have sought to be accepted as parties to those

proceedings.  However, they were not officially informed of those

proceedings and did not participate in them.  It is apparently on this

ground that they claim that the proceedings were conducted in an

unlawful manner.

90.     The question of the lawfulness of the building proceedings is

not at issue in the present case.  In the light of the developments as

described above, the applicants cannot be blamed for the delay between

the redesignation of their former land and their first reaction to it

by their application of 10 August 1982.

91.     Nor is the length of the interim proceedings on this application

attributable to the applicants.  The Commission considers that their

claims (exclusion of their former land from the consolidation area and

financial compensation) were not unreasonable in the circumstances.

92.     As the Agricultural District Authority did not decide on these

claims within the statutory time-limit of six months, the applicants

could request a transfer of jurisdiction to the Provincial Land Reform

Board, which was granted.  Soon after the Provincial Board's decision

on the first of their above claims (17 November 1983), which was

prejudicial to the main proceedings, they sought the continuation of

the latter, requesting transfer of jurisdiction to the Provincial

Board (17 January 1984).

93.     The remedies which the applicants pursued in the interim

proceedings thus did not hold up the main proceedings.  It is

therefore irrelevant whether it was reasonable for the applicants to

take these remedies (in particular the appeal against the Provincial

Board's decision of 17 November 1983 to the Supreme Land Reform Board

and the subsequent complaints to the Constitutional and Administrative

Courts, and the remedies concerning financial compensation which led

to the Administrative Court's final decision of 19 November 1985).  In

any event there is no indication that the applicants were responsible

for any delay in the above interim proceedings.

94.     As regards the further interim proceedings on the applicants'

request for transfer of jurisdiction of 17 January 1984, the

applicants cannot be held responsible for any delay either.  Even if

it was unreasonable that the applicants pursued this question up to

the Constitutional and Administrative Courts (final decision of

8 April 1986), the authorities invoked an objective obstacle

preventing the continuation of the main proceedings, namely the

necessity to await the outcome of the parallel planning proceedings.

The latter were, by their nature, outside the applicants' influence.

It must, therefore, be assumed that the consolidation plan would not

have been adopted earlier even if the applicants had not used the

above remedies - remedies which showed their concern for asserting

their right to a decision within a reasonable time.

95.     As regards the subsequent appeal proceedings, the Government

submit that the applicants have not complained of their length.  The

Commission considers, however, that such a complaint was raised at

least implicitly as soon as this was possible for the applicants.

They introduced their application on 12 August 1985 before the issuing

of the consolidation plan by the Agricultural District Authority.  At

that stage they could not yet complain of the length of the subsequent

appeal proceedings.  On 10 August 1987 they informed the Commission of

the introduction of their appeal.  On 15 July 1988 they submitted that

ten years after the provisional transfer of lands they still had not

obtained lawful compensation parcels.  On 13 October 1989 they

complained that the same situation still existed after more than

eleven years.

96.     It is true that during the appeal proceedings the applicants

participated in settlement negotiations.  However, it appears that

these were initiated by the authorities and there is no indication

that the applicants delayed those negotiations.  If they ultimately

rejected the proposals, they did so in the exercise of their legal

rights, refusing a settlement which in their view still fell short of

what they considered to be their legal entitlement.  Throughout the

relevant period they preserved their right under the Convention to the

determination of their civil rights within a reasonable time, i.e. to

a final decision on the merits of their case (cf.  No. 9616/81, Erkner

and Hofauer v.  Austria, Comm.  Report 24.1.86, para. 94).

97.     In sum the Commission therefore considers that the applicants

are not to blame for any substantial delay in the present case.

        6) The authorities' conduct

98.     The Commission recalls that the period to be considered under

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention started on 10 August

1982 when a dispute concerning the applicants' civil rights first

arose (cf. para. 79 above).

99.     The dispute concerned the consequences of the redesignation of

the applicants' former land as building plots, which had been effected

by an amendment of 16 November 1979 to the relevant area-zoning plan

which became final on 6 May 1980.  The authorities apparently failed

to consider in time in which way the applicants' legal entitlement as

regards their compensation parcels would be affected by this

redesignation (cf. para. 85 above).  They granted building permits to

the new provisional owners of the applicants' former land and thus

made the situation practically irreversible.  This is the basis of the

subsequent difficulties.

100.    When the above dispute arose, the consolidation proceedings

had already been pending for more than seven years, since 22 July 1975.

The provisional transfer of lands, which had become final in the

absence of any appeals, had taken place on 13 October 1978.  Having

regard to the three-year period laid down in Section 7a of the

Agricultural Proceedings Act, a consolidation plan should have been

adopted by October 1981, even before the dispute arose.

101.    In the Commission's opinion, although the above factors predate

the period relevant under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention (para. 79 above), they must be taken into consideration

when assessing the reasonableness of the authorities' further conduct

of the proceedings.

102.    On 10 August 1982 the applicants requested, inter alia, the

exclusion of their former land from the consolidation area, having

regard to its redesignation and the consideration that land not used

for agriculture or forestry purposes should not be subjected to

consolidation proceedings.  This issue was prejudicial to the main

issue, the determination of the applicant's compensation parcels.  It

was therefore, in principle, justified to suspend the main proceedings

pending the outcome of this litigation.

103.    However, the proceedings concerning the above request of

10 August 1982 were delayed beyond the statutory time-limit which

expired on 10 February 1983.  The applicants were therefore successful

with a request to transfer jurisdiction to the higher authority

(Provincial Board decision of 17 November 1983).  The final decision

concerning this issue was given by the Administrative Court on

20 March 1984.  (The further decisions of the Constitutional Court of

27 June 1984 and of the Administrative Court of 25 September 1984 only

confirmed the inadmissibility of an appeal to the Supreme Land Reform

Board concerning this matter.)

104.    In their application of 10 August 1982 the applicants further

claimed monetary compensation for interim damage.  This issue, which

was finally determined by the Administrative Court's decision of

19 November 1985, was not prejudicial to the main issue of

compensation parcels and therefore could not justify any delay in the

adoption of the consolidation plan.  It appears that the proceedings

concerning the plan were not actually upheld but conducted

simultaneously with the proceedings on the above side issue.

105.    However, the main proceedings concerning the consolidation

plan were suspended in view of parallel planning proceedings.  The

applicants' request for transfer of jurisdiction (17 January 1984)

was finally rejected by the Administrative Court on 8 April 1986

on the ground that the parallel planning proceedings prevented the

authorites from adopting the consolidation plan.

106.    Assuming that the parallel planning proceedings were

prejudicial to the consolidation plan, the Commission nevertheless

considers that those planning proceedings were the consequence of the

actions of the authorities, i.e. the redesignation of the applicants'

former land and the granting of building permits to the new

provisional owners of that land.  The respondent State is responsible

for any lack of co-ordination in this respect, insofar as it delayed

the determination of the applicants' civil rights.

107.    In the Commission's opinion, the "reasonable time" requirement

in Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) therefore was not observed in first instance

because

        - the consolidation plan should have been adopted

          by October 1981, even before the applicants'

          dispute with the authorities arose (cf. para. 100

          above; in fact the consolidation plan was adopted

          about four years and nine months later in July 1986);

        - the proceedings on the exclusion of the applicants'

          former land from the consolidation area were

          unreasonably delayed;

        - the suspension of the proceedings in view of the

          parallel planning proceedings revealed a lack of

          co-ordination between the various authorities

          concerned which entailed the responsibility of the

          Austrian State for the resultant delay (cf. para. 106

          above).

108.    The subsequent appeal proceedings before the Provincial Board

lasted three years and six months (July 1986 - January 1990).  The

Government stress the intensive efforts which were made to reach a

settlement with the applicants and the other parties concerned.  It

also appears that new planning proceedings took place in this context.

While the said settlement negotiations and planning proceedings may

have been useful to lay the ground for the eventual appeal decision,

the Commission nevertheless considers that the period involved was

unreasonable, having regard in particular to the length of the earlier

proceedings and the fact that the statutory time-limit under Austrian

law was exceeded by far.

Conclusion

109.    The Commission concludes unanimously that there has been

a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, in that the

applicants' civil rights and obligations were not determined within

a reasonable time.

C.      Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention

110.    Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention 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."

111.    The applicants claim that there has been a violation of this

provision in that the situation created by the provisional transfer of

lands ordered in 1978 was maintained to the present day, without their

being able to obtain a change of this situation or financial

compensation, although it was clear since the redesignation of their

former agricultural land as building plots in 1979/1980 that they had

not received sufficient compensation parcels.

112.    The Government submit that the agricultural lands which the

applicants received by the provisional transfer according to their own

wish initially corresponded to the value of the lands which they had

given up.  Following the redesignation of their former land they are

entitled to receive land of a value equal to that which their former

land now represents.  The temporary disadvantage, which the applicants

suffer by the fact that they will receive such land only after the

consolidation plan has become final, is, in the Government's view, not

disproportionate and thus not contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(P1-1) (cf. No. 9616/81, Erkner and Hofauer v. Austria, Comm. Report

24.1.86, para. 131).

113.    In the Government's view it also does not infringe Article 1

(Art. 1) that the applicants are not entitled to compensation in

respect of the financial benefit which accrued to the provisional new

owners of their land.  As the applicants no longer own their former

land, they cannot claim to be victims of a violation of their property

rights in this respect.

114.    The Commission recalls that, in an analogous situation,

the European Court of Human Rights unanimously found a violation of

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) in the Erkner/Hofauer and Poiss

judgments of 23 April 1987.  In the Erkner and Hofauer case the

interference had lasted more than 16 years at the time of the Court's

decision, and in the Poiss case almost 24 years.  The Court found a

continuous interference with property rights during such long periods

disproportionate (Erkner and Hofauer judgment, loc. cit., pp. 66-67

paras. 78-79, Poiss judgment, loc. cit., p. 109 paras. 68-69).

115.    As the Government rightly observe, the compensation parcels

allotted to the applicants in those cases were insufficient from the

outset while in the present case a disequilibrium arose only after the

provisional transfer when the applicants' former land was redesignated

as building plots.  The interference with the applicants' property

rights therefore did not begin at the date of the provisional transfer

(13 October 1978), but only with the redesignation (16 November 1979).

116.    The Commission nevertheless finds that the situation in

the present case was analogous to that in the Erkner/Hofauer and

Poiss cases from the moment when it became clear that the land

allotted to the present applicants by the provisional transfer was

insufficient.  The only difference is that in the present case the

insufficiency arose from events which occurred after the provisional

transfer while in the Erkner/Hofauer and Poiss cases it came to light

after the provisional transfer that it had been based on wrong

assumptions from the outset.

117.    The Commission confirms the view expressed in its Reports on

the Erkner/Hofauer (loc. cit. para. 131) and Poiss cases (loc. cit.

para. 125) that it can, in principle, be justified in the public

interest that by the operation of the provisional transfer of lands,

as conceived by the domestic legislation, the individual has to

sustain a temporary disadvantage if this disadvantage is not wholly

disproportionate to the legitimate aim generally pursued by this

measure.  Such a measure is not in itself contrary to Article 1

of the Protocol (P1-1).

118.    In the present case it would therefore have been justified to

maintain the situation created by the provisional transfer for a

limited time after the redesignation of the applicants' former land,

i.e. until an appropriate adjustment could be made, in the main

consolidation proceedings or in other proceedings, which should have

been completed within a reasonable time after the new situation had

arisen.

119.    It is not for the Commission to indicate in which manner

redress should have been given to the applicants.  The Commission

notes, however, that their situation was particularly unsatisfactory

in that their former lands had been redesignated as building plots at

the initiative of other parties who thus obtained a financial benefit.

According to the Administrative Court's final decision of 19 November 1985

the applicants cannot get financial compensation for having been

deprived, by the provisional transfer of their former lands to other

parties, of the possibility to realise such benefits themselves.  They

can only be compensated in the form of land of equal value, i.e.

building plots which they do not need themselves and for which,

according to them, there is no demand on the market.

120.    The Commission here notes that the applicants are in general

opposed to the use of agricultural consolidation proceedings for land

development, i.e. a purpose different from that legitimately pursued

by such proceedings.  It considers that this might raise an issue as

to whether the restriction of their property rights, which was imposed

on the applicants by the provisional transfer, was still compatible

with Article 18 (Art. 18) of the Convention after the redesignation of

their former land.

121.    In any event, the above interference with the applicants'

property rights has now existed for ten and a half years

(November 1979 -  June 1990) without their having been able to obtain

any redress.  The Commission considers that the applicants thereby

suffered more than a temporary disadvantage which parties to

consolidation proceedings can reasonably be expected to sustain.

There was no appropriate balance between the measures taken in the

public interest and the protection of the applicants' right of

property.  They had to bear a disproportionate burden incompatible

with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.

Conclusion

122.    The Commission concludes unanimously that there has been a

violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention.

D.      Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention

123.    Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention reads as follows:

"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in

this Convention shall be secured without discrimination

on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language,

religion, political or other opinion, national or social

origin, association with a national minority, property,

birth or other status."

124.    The applicants complain that they have been discriminated

against in the enjoyment of their property rights in that they were

treated less favourably than the provisional owners of their former

land to whom the benefit of the increased value brought about by the

redesignation of this land accrued and who, contrary to the

applicants, were granted building permits.

125.    However, having regard to its above finding that there has

been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) (para. 122

above), the Commission finds no separate issue under Article 14 of the

Convention.

Conclusion

126.    The Commission concludes unanimously that it is not necessary

to examine the case additionally under Article 14 (Art. 14) of the

Convention.

E.      Recapitulation

127.    The Commission concludes unanimously that there has been

a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, in that

the applicants' civil rights and obligations were not determined within

a reasonable time (cf. para. 109 above).

128.    The Commission concludes unanimously that there has been

a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention (cf.

para. 122 above).

129.    The Commission concludes unanimously that it is not necessary

to examine the case additionally under Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention

(cf. para. 126 above).

Secretary to the Commission               President of the Commission

   (H.C. KRÜGER)                               (C.A. NØRGAARD)

                                APPENDIX I

                           HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS

Date                            Item

______________________________________________________________________

12 August 1985                  Introduction of the application

8 October 1985                  Registration of the application

Examination of Admissibility

28 February 1988                Commission's decision to invite

                                the Government to submit

                                observations on the admissibility

                                and merits of the application

16 May 1988                     Extension of time-limit

26 May 1988                     Government's observations

20 July 1988                    Applicants' observations in reply

14 October 1988                 Commission grants legal aid to the

                                applicants

10 July 1989                    Commission's decision to declare the

                                application admissible

Examination of the merits

29 August 1989                  Admissibility decision communicated

                                to the parties

13 October 1989                 Applicants' further observations

                                on the merits

17 October 1989                 Government's further observations

                                on the merits

11 December 1989                Commission's deliberations on the

                                merits

6 June 1990                     Commission's further deliberations

                                on the merits, final votes and

                                adoption of the Report