AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 14249/88

                      by L.P. and T.P.

                      against Austria

      The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 1 September 1993, 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

                 G.B. REFFI

                 N. BRATZA

           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 4 June 1987 by

L.P. and T.P. against Austria and registered on 27 September 1988 under

file No. 14249/88;

      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 facts of the case as submitted by the applicants may be

summarised as follows:

      The applicants, Austrian citizens born in 1902 and 1906

respectively who live on their farm at Dietersdorf, Lower Austria, are

represented by Rechtsanwalt Dr. Richard Wandl of St. Pölten. They

complain of agricultural land consolidation proceedings

(Zusammenlegungsverfahren) under the Lower Austrian Agricultural Land

Planning Act (Flurverfassungsgesetz) to which their land has been

subjected.

      The facts submitted may be summarised as follows.

      The consolidation plan (Zusammenlegungsplan) was issued by the

Agricultural District Authority (Agrarbezirksbehörde) on 13 December

1973.  Upon appeal by another party this plan was amended by a decision

of the Provincial Agricultural Land Reform Board (Landesagrarsenat) on

25 January 1977. A compensation parcel earlier assigned to the other

party was now attributed to the applicants while part of a compensation

parcel earlier assigned to the applicants was attributed to the other

party. The applicants appealed against this decision to the Supreme

Land Reform Board (Oberster Agrarsenat). They submitted that they had

accepted to give up lands near the village for land of inferior quality

situated farther away since this had led to the creation of a new large

complex.  By the Provincial Board's decision this complex had been

broken up. However, on 5 April 1978 the Supreme Board rejected the

applicants' appeal as unfounded.  It stated, inter alia, that

possession of a cellar could be held by another person than the owner

of the land above the cellar.  Therefore the attribution of the land

under which the applicants had their cellar to another party was

unobjectionable.

      The applicants then lodged a complaint with the Constitutional

Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) alleging unconstitutionality of the

applicable provision of the Provincial Act.  The Constitutional Court

instituted proceedings for the review of the constitutionality of this

provision (Normenkontrollverfahren) and found on 3 October 1984 that

it was unconstitutional (Collection of Constitutional Court Decisions

No. 10.176).  As a consequence, the Supreme Board's above decision was

quashed by the Constitutional Court on 27 February 1985 (Collection of

Constitutional Court Decisions No. 10.360).

      On 5 March 1986 the Supreme Board took a new decision on the

basis of amended legislation introduced subsequently to the

Constitutional Court's above decision of 3 October 1984.  However, it

again confirmed the Provincial Board's decision of 25 January 1977,

finding that the applicants had thereby received lawful compensation

parcels.  It noted in particular that they had contributed 11 complexes

of land and in exchange had received 3 complexes. They had no right to

receive only two complexes as had been the situation before the

Provincial Board's above decision; even with 3 complexes there was

still a considerable improvement of the economic structure brought

about by the consolidation measures.  The Supreme Board also confirmed

the lawfulness of the assignment to another party of land situated just

above a cellar of the applicants, denying that this land had to be

qualified as land of special value which the authority was required to

reassign to the original owner.  Concerning a former parcel of the

applicants adjoining the cellar which the applicants claimed should

have been qualified as a building plot and therefore also as land of

special value to be reassigned to them, the Supreme Board likewise

confirmed the allotment to another party, noting that this parcel was

in fact outside the area designated for constructions purposes and

therefore no land of special value; moreover, the applicants originally

had not claimed the reassignment of this land. The Supreme Board

further did not find it objectionable that the surface of certain land

of special value reassigned to the applicants had been reduced as a

result of the regulation of an adjoining rivulet and the creation of

common installations.  It finally rejected complaints of the applicants

that they had received less valuable agricultural land than that which

they had contributed and that the economic unity of their farm with

that of another party had been disregarded.  Insofar as the applicants

had requested to be informed of an expert opinion prepared by a member

of the Board, it was stated that such an expert opinion did not exist

as the Board could rely on the special knowledge of its expert members

for agronomy and agriculture.

      The applicants again complained to the Constitutional Court,

invoking their constitutional rights to equality before the law,

inviolability of property, and decision of the case by the lawful

judge.  They also alleged unconstitutionality of a provision of the

Provincial Act. However, on 27 November 1986 the Constitutional Court

refused to deal with the complaint, finding that in the light of the

case-law it was unlikely that an unconstitutionality of the legislative

provision in question could be established, and that the case did not

raise specific questions of constitutional law.  As regards a possible

violation of non-constitutional rights, the case was referred to the

Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof).

      The latter Court rejected the applicants' complaints on 3

December 1987.  It observed that the applicants' appeal against the

Provincial Board's decision of 25 January 1977 had been limited to the

new measures ordered by this decision and that it was therefore

inadmissible to challenge other measures including those relating to

the refusal of reassignment of parcels in the area of the applicants'

cellar, reduction of the surface of reassigned land of special value,

and assignment of allegedly less valuable agricultural land. Regarding

the new measures the Supreme Board had rightly confirmed the lawfulness

of the applicants' compensation. Furthermore, there had been no

violation of the applicants' procedural rights in that they had been

sufficiently informed of the results of the investigation. The

participation of the expert members in the Board's decision was not

objectionable as it served the purpose of providing the authority with

the necessary technical expertise.  In this respect the Administrative

Court referred inter alia to the Ettl judgment of 23 April 1987 (Eur.

Court H.R., Series A no. 117, p. 3 et seq.).

COMPLAINTS

      The applicants allege violations of Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

      Under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention they complain that they

were not heard within a "reasonable time" as the proceedings lasted 15

years.  They further claim that their right to a "fair hearing" was

disregarded in particular concerning the allotment of the land situated

above their cellar to another party. In this respect they contest the

view that only the specific measures appealed against, but not the

global result of the consolidation was at issue in the relevant

administrative proceedings.

      Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the

applicants complain primarily of the deprivation of their land situated

above the cellar. They further complain that by the provisional

transfer of lands, which took place before the adoption of the

consolidation plan in 1973, and which was upheld until the final

decision, they were wrongly deprived of their original land which then

was exploited by other parties, the applicants for this reason being

unable to assert their rights appropriately in the subsequent main

proceedings.  They claim to have suffered considerable damage as a

result.

PROCEEDINGS

      The application was introduced on 4 June 1987 and registered on

27 September 1988.

      On 12 July 1989 the Commission decided to give notice of the

application to the Respondent Government who were invited to submit

observations in writing on the admissibility and the merits of the

application.

      The Government submitted their observations on 7 December 1989

and the applicants replied thereto on 25 January 1990.  An English

translation of the Government's observations was submitted on 11 March

1991.THE LAW

1.    The applicants mainly complain that, in agricultural land

consolidation proceedings concerning their property, their civil rights

and obligations were not determined "within a reasonable time" required

by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1), first sentence of the Convention which

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......"

      The applicants argue that the proceedings in question have

started on 13 December 1973 when the consolidation plan was issued.

      The respondent Government argue that this plan had been accepted

by the applicants who only objected to its amendment which had been

effected by the Provincial Agricultural Land Reform Board in its

decision of 25 January 1977 on appeal by a third party.

      The Commission considers that in the appeal proceedings

instituted by another party the applicant's "civil rights and

obligations" were not in dispute.  The applicants admit that in fact

their rights were only affected by the Provincial Agricultural Land

Reform Board's decision of 25 January 1977 by which the original

consolidation plan was amended and other compensation parcels were

assigned to them.  Thus, 11 February 1977, when the applicants appealed

against the decision in question, is the starting point of the

proceedings in which a dispute over the applicants' alleged civil

rights was determined.

      These proceedings lasted until 3 December 1987 when the

Administrative Court's decision was delivered.  This period included

proceedings before the Constitutional Court.

      The Commission considers, that in the light of the criteria

established by the case law of the Convention organs on the question

of "reasonable time" (the complexity of the case, the applicant's

conduct and that of the competent authorities) and having regard to all

the information in its possession, a thorough examination of this

complaint is required as to the merits.

2.    The applicants have further alleged a violation of their right

to a fair hearing in that the Administrative Court did not in its

decision of 3 December 1987 deal with their particular complaint that

the assignment to another party of land situated just above their

cellar interfered with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of

possessions.  However, it has to be noted that the Supreme Land Reform

Board stated in this respect in its decision of 5 April 1978 that the

right of property relating to the cellar could be separated from the

right to property to the parcel under which the cellar was situated.

Therefore the attribution of the parcel above the applicant's cellar

to other parties was unobjectionable.

      This finding apparently meant that the applicants remained the

owner of the cellar and it has not been shown by them that this

ownership has been put in question.

      In any event, the Commission notes that according to the findings

of the Administrative Court in its decision 3 December 1987 the

applicants appeal had been limited to the new measures ordered by the

Provincial Board's decision of 25 January 1977 and that it was

therefore inadmissible to challenge other measures including those

relating to the original assignment of 13 December 1973 to another

party of the parcel above the applicant's cellar.

      It can in the circumstances of the present case not be found that

this interpretation of the applicant's appeal was arbitrary and

violated the applicant's right to a fair hearing within the meaning of

Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.

      This complaint therefore has to be rejected as being manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

3.    The applicants have finally alleged a violation of their right

to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.

      The Commission first observes that the applicants have failed to

appeal against the allotment of compensation parcels effected in

application of the consolidation plan issued on 13 December 1973.  The

question therefore arises whether they have exhausted domestic remedies

in this respect.  In any event, it has to be noted that according to

the finding of the Supreme Land Reform Board in its decision of 5 April

1978 the applicants had received adequate compensation parcels in the

consolidation proceedings and their property right in regard to the

cellar in question has not been affected by the attribution of the land

above the cellar to another party.  The applicants have neither shown

that contrary to this finding the right to the peaceful enjoyment of

possession of the cellar has been contested by public authorities or

private parties nor that globally the land attributed to them was

considerably less valuable than their prior parcels.

      There is consequently no appearance of a violation of Article 1

of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

      It follows that this part of the application has likewise 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 ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits, the complaint

      relating to the length of the proceedings.

      DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

Secretary to the First Chamber        President of the First Chamber

     (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                       (A. WEITZEL)