Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 17658/91

by F.M. ZUMTOBEL Gesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and

Franz Martin ZUMTOBEL

against Austria

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 15 October 1991, the following members being present:

MM. J.A. FROWEIN, Acting President

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

Mr. J. RAYMOND, Deputy Secretary to the Commission,

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 21 December

1990 by F.M. ZUMTOBEL Gesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Franz Martin

ZUMTOBEL against Austria and registered on 14 January 1991 under file

No. 17658/91;

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.

Particular circumstances of the case

The first applicant is a company of limited partnership

(Kommanditgesellschaft) under Austrian law. The second applicant, an

Austrian citizen residing at Dornbirn, is the general partner and

manager of the first applicant.

On 19 September 1988 the Feldkirch District Administrative

Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) dismissed the first applicant's

application for a preliminary examination (Vorprüfung) of his request

to build a department store of a total sales area of 7,650 m² in

Rankweil on the ground that it was contrary to the area zoning plan

(Flächenwidmungsplan).

On 15 December 1988 an amendment to the Vorarlberg Regional

Planning Act (Raumplanungsgesetz) entered into force. According to

its Section 14 para. 9 a building permit for the construction of a

shopping centre may only be granted, if there is a corresponding

designation and if the maximum total effective sales area fixed by the

area zoning plan is not exceeded.

On 12 January 1989 the Vorarlberg Provincial Government

(Landesregierung) dismissed the first applicant's appeal against the

District Authority's decision. It found in particular that the first

applicant's project provided for a shopping centre and that its land

was not designated as a special area for shopping centres (besondere

Fläche für Einkaufszentren).

The first applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional

Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). It submitted that the decision

violated its right of property and contravened Article 6 of the

Convention. It further contended that Section 14 paras. 6 to 11 of the

Vorarlberg Regional Planning Act was unconstitutional.

On 25 September 1989 the Constitutional Court refused to deal

with the first applicant's complaint and referred the case to the

Administrative Court.

On 5 April 1990 in a supplement to its complaint the first

applicant alleged violations of its right to constitutional laws and

its right of property, and of Article 6 of the Convention.

On 26 April 1990 the Administrative Court dismissed the

complaint. In the Court's opinion it was undisputed that the land in

question was not designated as a special area for shopping centres.

Therefore, the authorities' refusal of a preliminary examination was

lawful.

Relevant domestic law and practice

1. Building permits

According to Section 28 para. 1 of the Vorarlberg Building Act

(Baugesetz) the authority has to carry out a preliminary examination

("Vorprüfung") if it is in the interest of simplicity, quickness or of

saving costs.

Paras. 2 and 4 of Section 28 state:

[Translation]

"(2) In the preliminary examination the authority has to

establish whether

a) an area zoning plan on the basis of the Regional

Planning Act

...

preclude(s) the project.

(3) ...

(4) If one of the reasons in para. 2 precludes the project,

the request for a preliminary examination ... is to be

refused."

[German]

"(2) Bei der Vorprüfung hat die Behörde festzustellen, ob

dem Vorhaben

a) ein Flächenwidmungsplan auf Grund des Raumplanungsgesetzes,

...

entgegenstehen.

(3) ...

(4) Steht dem Vorhaben einer der Gründe des Abs. 2 entgegen,

so ist der Antrag auf Vorprüfung ... abzuweisen."

II. Land planning legislation

Land planning in Austria is divided into regional and local land

planning (überörtliche und örtliche Raumordnung). In the present case

the land planning at issue was governed by the law of the Province of

Vorarlberg.

In order to achieve the aims of the regional land planning

laid down in Section 2 of the Regional Planning Act the Vorarlberg

Provincial Government (Landesregierung) has to issue regional land

plans (Landesraumpläne) (Section 7).

The local land planning is carried out by the communities

which issue area zoning plans (Flächenwidmungspläne) that designate

the land as building areas (Bauflächen), possible future building

areas (Bauerwartungsflächen), undeveloped areas (Freiflächen),

traffic areas (Verkehrsflächen) and reserved areas

(Vorbehaltsflächen).

Even if a plot of land is designated as building land certain

buildings may only be built there if there is express provision in a

regional land plan. Section 14 paras. 6 to 11 provides for "special

areas for shopping centres" ("besondere Flächen für

Einkaufszentren"). This provision, as far as relevant, reads as

follows:

[Translation]

"(6) Special areas for shopping centres may be established

in a building area, if such a designation is declared

admissible in the community concerned according to a

regional land plan ...

(7) Shopping centres are buildings or parts of buildings

with a total sales area of more than 400 m², in the grounds

of the Leiblach valley, the Rhine valley and the Walgau, of a

total of more than 600 m² which are meant for the sale of

articles of everyday use, especially food. Buildings or

parts of buildings which accommodate sales areas of

commercial enterprises of a total size of more than 1,500 m²

are also deemed shopping centres.

(8) The community shall fix the maximum size of the

admissible total sales area of a shopping centre to be built

in the area zoning plan ...

(9) A building permit for the construction of a shopping

centre may only be granted if there is a corresponding

designation and if the maximum size of the admissible total

sales area fixed in the area zoning plan is not exceeded ...".

[German]

"(6) Im Baugebiet können besondere Flächen für

Einkaufszentren festgelegt werden, sofern eine solche

Widmung nach einem Landesraumplan in der betreffenden

Gemeinde für zulässig erklärt ist ...

(7) Einkaufszentren sind Gebäude oder Gebäudeteile mit

Verkaufsflächen von insgesamt mehr als 400 m², in den

Talsohlen von Leiblachtal, Rheintal und Walgau von insgesamt

mehr als 600 m², die für den Verkauf von Waren des täglichen

Bedarfes, insbesondere von Lebensmitteln, bestimmt sind.

Als Einkaufszentren gelten auch Gebäude oder Gebäudeteile, in

denen Verkaufsflächen von Handelsbetrieben im Ausmaß von

insgesamt mehr als 1500 m² untergebracht sind.

(8) Die Gemeinde hat im Flächenwidmungsplan das

Höchstausmaß der zulässigen Gesamtverkaufsfläche eines zu

errichtenden Einkaufszentrums festzusetzen ...

(9) Eine Baubewilligung für die Errichtung eines

Einkaufszentrums darf nur erteilt werden, wenn eine

entsprechende Widmung besteht und das im Flächenwidmungsplan

festgelegte Höchstausmaß der zulässigen Gesamtverkaufsfläche

nicht überschritten wird ...".

Both the regional land plans and the area zoning plans are

Ordinances (Verordnungen). These ordinances can be challenged before

the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) for unlawfulness

according to Article 139 of the Austrian Federal Constitution. In

general, however, one cannot complain about the fact that an authority

has not issued an ordinance.

In the present case the Provincial Government did not issue a

regional land plan for the community in question. The owners of

affected land are neither parties in the planning proceedings nor can

they request an exemption from the designation provided for in the plans.

III. The jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court

The Austrian Constitutional Court pronounced itself on the

applicability and scope of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention to

building proceedings originating from Austrian administrative

authorities in its decision of 14 October 1987 (B 267/86, VfSlg

11500/1987). It held that the refusal of a building permit was not a

decision on a "civil right". The Court stated the following:

[Translation]

"The refusal of a building permit is rather an interference

by the State in the public interest - it is indeed the very

archetype of such an interference -, and the upholding of

public interests including the necessary balancing of public

and private interests is the essential function of

administration. The fact that the subject of the

interference is generally property and hence a private

property right, does not change its public law character."

[German]

"Vielmehr ist die Versagung einer Baubewilligung ein

hoheitlicher Eingriff im öffentlichen Interesse - ja

geradezu der Prototyp eines solchen Eingriffs -, und die

Wahrnehmung der öffentlichen Interessen einschließlich der

nötigen Abwägung gegenüber privaten Interessen die

wesentliche Aufgabe der Verwaltung. Daß der Gegenstand des

Eingriffs regelmäßig das Eigentum und damit ein privates

Vermögensrecht ist, ändert an seinem öffentlich-rechtlichen

Charakter nichts."

The Court distinguished between decisions concerning the core

of civil law (i.e. disputes among private persons) and decisions on

disputes which only concern civil rights in their effects (namely the

relationship between the private person and the public). In order to

avoid a complete change of the Austrian State structure, the Court

considered that the requirements of a tribunal within the meaning of

Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention should depend on whether the

dispute concerned the one or the other category. With regard to

decisions concerning civil rights only in their effects the Court

found that it sufficed under Article 6 para. 1 if a tribunal exercised

a mere subsequent control of the decision. The Court continued:

[Translation]

"Such a subsequent control would in any event suffice if,

regardless of its nature as a merely subsequent control

which does not provide for the reopening of proceedings, the

court effectively (and not merely theoretically and in the

abstract) has the possibility to convince itself of the

correctness of the solution in regard to the facts and

the law applied and its judgment on the matter is capable of

being enforced. Such a control falls to the Austrian

Administrative Court in the light of an understanding of the

Administrative Court Act which is oriented towards the

Constitution."

[German]

"Eine solche nachprüfende Kontrolle müsste jedenfalls dann

genügen, wenn sie ungeachtet ihres bloss nachprüfenden,

nicht auf einer Neudurchführung des Verfahrens beruhenden

Charakters dem Gericht - nicht bloss theoretisch und

abstrakt, sondern im Ergebnis auch wirksam - Gelegenheit

gibt, sich von der Richtigkeit der Lösung sowohl der Tat -

wie der Rechtsfrage zu überzeugen und sein Urteil über die

Sache auch durchzusetzen, wie dies bei einem an der

Verfassung orientierten Verständnis des

Verwaltungsgerichtshofgesetzes dem österreichischen VwGH

aufgetragen ist."

IV. Proceedings before the Administrative Court

According to Article 130 para. 1 of the Federal Constitution

the Administrative Court reviews allegations of unlawfulness of an

administrative decision. Article 130 para. 2 excludes the review of

the exercise of discretionary powers within the scope of the law. The

Administrative Court is also competent to deal with complaints that

the administrative authority has violated its duty to take a decision

(Article 132).

Section 41 of the Administrative Court Act provides, insofar

as relevant:

[Translation]

"(1) Insofar as the Administrative Court does not find

unlawfulness on account of a lack of jurisdiction of the

authority against which the appeal is directed or on account

of a violation of procedural provisions (Section 42 para. 2

[2] and [3]) ..., the Court must examine the contested

decision on the basis of the facts as accepted by the

authority against which the appeal is directed within the

framework of the alleged complaint ... If it is of the

opinion that reasons would be relevant for the decision on

the unlawfulness of the contested decision ... which were

so far not known to a party, it must hear the parties

thereupon and, if necessary, adjourn the proceedings.

(2) In the cases of Article 132 of the Federal Constitution

the Court must determine the facts, taking into account

Section 36 para. 9."

[German]

"(1) Der Verwaltungsgerichtshof hat, soweit er nicht

Rechtswidrigkeit wegen Unzuständigkeit der belangten Behörde

oder wegen Verletzung von Verfahrensvorschriften gegeben

findet (§ 42 Abs. 2 Z 2 und 3) ... den angefochtenen

Bescheid auf Grund des von der belangten Behörde

angenommenen Sachverhaltes im Rahmen der geltend gemachten

Beschwerdepunkte ... zu überprüfen. Ist er der Ansicht,

dass für die Entscheidung über die Rechtswidrigkeit des

Bescheides in einem der Beschwerdepunkte ... Gründe

massgebend sein könnten, die einer Partei bisher nicht

bekanntgegeben wurden, so hat er die Parteien darüber zu

hören und wenn nötig, eine Vertagung zu verfügen.

(2) In den Fällen des Art. 132 B-VG hat der

Gerichtshof den Sachverhalt unter Bedachtnahme auf § 36 Abs.

9 festzustellen."

As regards the decisions of the Administrative Court, Section

42 para. 2 of the Administrative Court Act provides, insofar

as relevant:

[Translation]

"(2) The contested decision must be quashed

1. on account of the unlawfulness of its content,

2. on account of unlawfulness due to the lack of

jurisdiction of the authority against which the

appeal is directed,

3. on account of unlawfulness due to a violation of

procedural provisions because

a) the authority against which the appeal is

directed has determined the facts on an

important point contrary to the

case-file, or

b) the facts need to be supplemented on an

important point, or

c) procedural provisions have been disregarded

which, if taken into consideration by the

authority against which the appeal is

directed, would have led to a different

decision of the authority."

[German]

"(2) Der angefochtene Bescheid ist aufzuheben

1. wegen Rechtswidrigkeit seines Inhaltes,

2. wegen Rechtswidrigkeit infolge Unzuständigkeit

der belangten Behörde,

3. wegen Rechtswidrigkeit infolge Verletzung von

Verfahrensvorschriften, und zwar weil

a) der Sachverhalt von der belangten Behörde

in einem wesentlichen Punkt aktenwidrig

angenommen wurde oder

b) der Sachverhalt in einem wesentlichen

Punkt einer Ergänzung bedarf oder

c) Verfahrensvorschriften ausser acht gelassen

wurden, bei deren Einhaltung die belangte

Behörde zu einem anderen Bescheid hätte

kommen können."

The proceedings before the Administrative Court consist of an

exchange of written observations between the parties (Section

36) and an oral hearing of their legal arguments (Sections 39 and

40). The parties have a right to request a hearing (Section 39,

para. 1 [1]).

The decision of the Administrative Court is either to dismiss

the complaint or to quash the decision complained of (Section 42 para.

1). If the complaint is allowed the authorities are obliged to

establish immediately with the legal means available to them the legal

situation which corresponds to the view of the Administrative Court

in the particular case (Section 63).

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention that in the building proceedings they did not benefit from

a procedure in conformity with this provision before an independent

and impartial tribunal having full jurisdiction on questions of law

and fact. In particular they complain about the fact that no tribunal

issued a regional land plan for the community in which the

applicants' land is situated.

With reference to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the

Convention the applicants complain that Section 14 paras. 6 to 11

of the Vorarlberg Regional Planning Act constituted an unjustified

restriction of the use of property.

THE LAW

1. The applicants complain that in the proceedings in which they

were involved they did not have access to an independent and impartial

tribunal as guaranteed by Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention. This

provision states, insofar as it is relevant:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or

of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to

a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an

independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ..."

a) The applicants complain in particular that they did not have

access to an independent and impartial tribunal which would have

issued a regional land plan.

The applicants submit that the proceedings at issue concerned

their right to build a shopping centre and subsequently their right to

practise gainful activities in the shopping centre. In their view

their civil rights have been determined in the building proceedings.

The Commission recalls that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention applies only to disputes over "rights and obligations"

which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised

under domestic law. Article 6 (Art. 6) does not in itself guarantee any

particular content for "rights and obligations" in the substantive law

of the Contracting States (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Lithgow and others

judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A No. 102, p. 70, para. 192).

The Commission further recalls that the Court found that

there was a dispute over a "right" if an unlawful prolongation of the

building prohibition by an area plan is alleged (Eur. Court H.R.,

Allan Jacobsson judgment of 25 October 1989, Series A No. 163, pp. 19 -

20, para. 67 et seq.), if an unlawful amendment of a building plan is

alleged (Eur. Court H.R., Mats Jacobsson judgment of 28 June 1990,

Series A No. 180, p. 12 et seq., para. 30 et seq.), or if the

applicant claims a right to an exemption from the building plan (Eur.

Court H.R., Skärby judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A No. 180, p. 36 et

seq., para. 27 et seq.). The Commission recalls that these judgments

dealt with building proceedings in which the applicants could claim an

individual right which was affected by a building or area plan.

The Commission notes that in the present case the applicants

do not have an individual right to enforce the adoption of a regional

land plan by the Provincial Government which allowed the designation

of land as a "special area for shopping centres" in a particular

community. According to Austrian law the adoption of a regional land

plan only concerns the competence of that community to designate land

for particular purposes.

The Commission therefore concludes that the question whether a

regional land plan should have been issued did not involve a

"determination of (the applicants') civil rights and obligations"

within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

It follows that, insofar as the applicants complain that in

the proceedings concerning the issue of a development programme they

did not have access to an independent and impartial tribunal, the

application is incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention

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

b) The applicants also direct their complaints under Article 6

para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention against the proceedings

concerning the building permit.

The Commission does not find it necessary to decide whether

there was a serious dispute over a right within the meaning of Article

6 (Art. 6) of the Convention. It notes that the applicants applied

for a permit to build on their land and that the applicants had a

right in general to build on their land according to the regional

legislation.

Assuming that the applicants could claim a "right" to build on

their land, this "right" would be of a "civil" nature for the purposes

of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) (see e.g. the above-mentioned Allan

Jacobsson judgment, p. 20, para. 73).

The Commission therefore accepts that Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention is applicable to the building proceedings

at issue.

With regard to the proceedings concerning the building permit

the applicants complain under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) that they

did not have access to an independent and impartial tribunal.

The Commission considers that the proceedings before the

building authorities do not satisfy the requirements of Article 6

para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. However, these requirements

would be satisfied if subsequently the applicants' civil rights had

been determined by a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1). Such a determination would require that the court could

undertake a comprehensive examination of all relevant questions of law

and fact (see Ettl and others v. Austria, Comm. Report 3.7.1985,

para. 78 with further references).

In the present case the Commission need not examine in the

abstract whether the Administrative Court meets the requirements of

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. The Commission notes in

particular that in the proceedings before the Administrative Court the

establishment and the assessment of the facts were not in dispute

between the parties. Rather the only question raised by the first

applicant within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court was

whether or not the request for building a shopping centre complied

with the requirements of the area zoning plan. This was, however,

solely a question of the application of the law. It is not contested

by the applicants that the Administrative Court was competent to

undertake this examination.

As a result, the Commission considers that the requirements of

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention have been complied

with. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly

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

the Convention.

2. The applicants also allege a violation of Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) in that Section 14 paras. 6 to 11 of the

Vorarlberg Regional Planning Act constituted an unjustified

restriction of their use of property.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) reads as follows:

"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the

peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be

deprived of his possessions except in the public interest

and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the

general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any

way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it

deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance

with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes

or other contributions or penalties."

In fact, Section 14 paras. 6 to 11 of the above-mentioned law

made the designation of a land as an area for shopping centres subject

to the issue of a regional land plan.

The Commission considers, assuming that this restriction was

an interference with the applicants' right to peaceful enjoyment of

their possessions, that it was justified under the second paragraph

of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) (see, mutatis mutandis, the

above-mentioned Allan Jacobsson judgment, p. 16, para. 54).

The Commission notes that the restriction was lawful.

Moreover, the purpose of the provisions - to facilitate land planning

- is in accordance with the general interest as envisaged in Article 1

para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1-2).

As to the proportionality the Commission finds that it cannot

be considered disproportionate to the requirements of the legitimate

aim of land planning if the Provincial Government is given competence

to decide in which community there should be a shopping centre.

As a result this part of the application is also manifestly

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

Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Deputy Secretary to the Commission Acting President of the Commission

(J. RAYMOND) (J.A. FROWEIN)

Menu

F.M. ZUMTOBEL GESELLSCHAFT mbH & CO. KG AND ZUMTOBEL v. AUSTRIA

F.M. ZUMTOBEL GESELLSCHAFT mbH & CO. KG AND ZUMTOBEL v. AUSTRIA

LEXI