Search
document

Document text Analytics

F.N. v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 19742/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1812

Document date: April 6, 1994

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

F.N. v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 19742/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1812

Document date: April 6, 1994

Cited paragraphs only

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)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant