AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 11796/85

                      by W.

                      against Austria

        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 10 July 1989, the following members being present:

              MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

                  J.A. FROWEIN

                  S. TRECHSEL

                  F. ERMACORA

                  G. SPERDUTI

                  E. BUSUTTIL

                  G. JÖRUNDSSON

                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

                  A. WEITZEL

                  J.-C. SOYER

                  H.G. SCHERMERS

                  H. DANELIUS

                  G. BATLINER

                  J. CAMPINOS

                  H. VANDENBERGHE

             Mrs.  G.H. THUNE

             Sir  Basil HALL

             MM.  F. MARTINEZ

                  C.L. ROZAKIS

             Mrs.  J. LIDDY

             Mr.  L. LOUCAIDES

             Mr.  H.C. KRÜGER, 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 12 August 1985

by W. against Austria and registered on 8 October 1985 under file No.

11796/85;

        Having regard to:

      - the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of

        Procedure of the Commission;

      - the Commission's decision of 29 February 1988 to bring the

        application to the notice of the respondent Government and

        invite them to submit written observations on its

        admissibility and merits;

      - the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

        26 May 1988 and the observations in reply submitted by the

        applicants on 15 July 1988;

        Having deliberated;

        Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

        The facts of the case as submitted by the parties may

be summarised as follows:

        The applicants, Austrian citizens born in 1935 and 1936

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

are represented by Mr.  Peter Wiesauer, a lawyer practising in Linz.

They complain of agricultural land consolidation proceedings

(Flurbereinigungsverfahren) under the Upper Austrian Agricultural Land

Planning Act (Flurverfassungs-Landesgesetz).

        The proceedings were instituted by the Agricultural District

Authority (Agrarbezirksbehörde) of Linz on 22 July 1975.  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.

        On 13 October 1978 the authority ordered the provisional

transfer (vorläufige Übernahme) according to the draft consolidation

plan (Neueinteilungsplan) to which the applicants had declared their

consent.  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.

        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.  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.  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.

        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.

        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 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 a loss of AS 1,600,000 in

respect of two years since the change of designation.

        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 any compensation

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

consolidation plan has become final.  The authority observed that in

the present case the consolidation plan had not yet been issued

although it was shortly to be expected.

        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).

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.

        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.

        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.

        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 the law (Section 20 of the Provincial Act)

provided monetary compensation (i.e. temporary disadvantages caused

by the consolidation proceedings).  The applicants' claim for financial

compensation was in fundamental conflict with the provisions of the

law according to which lands of special value must in principle

be compensated by land of the same kind (Section 19 para. 10 of the

Provincial Act).  The provisional transfer of lands had become final

and therefore 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.

        However, the local authority had informed the Provincial

Board of a recent plan to designate the applicants' compensation

parcels as a building area.  Details were not yet known.  In any event

the questions concerning the designation of the land in the area

zoning plan were preliminary questions (Vorfragen) for the agricultural

authorities which could take their decision on the final consolidation

plan only when these preliminary questions had been settled.  Only

after the decision had been taken on the consolidation plan would the

Provincial Board be competent to examine in the context of appeal

proceedings whether or not the applicants had been lawfully

compensated by their parcels.  Their request to decide this question

immediately was therefore inadmissible.

        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 considered that there was no issue of

specific relevance under constitutional law (Article 144 para. 2 of

the Federal Constitution).  The Provincial Board's decision did not

involve a breach of 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.

        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 a 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 in this respect was not applicable

since a modification of the decision on the provisional transfer would

interfere with the rights of the new owners.

        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.

        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.  In the present

case 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 which had involved

the necessity to send the file to various other authorities during

lengthy periods;  (c)  the proceedings concerning the modification of

the area zoning plan.  These proceedings fell in the jurisdiction of

the local authority and concerned a preliminary issue (Vorfrage) to

the Agricultural District Authority's decision.  The latter 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.  An interruption

(Aussetzen) of the proceedings was legally justified in these

circumstances and therefore the Agricultural District Authority could

not be held responsible for the delay.

        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: The Agricultural

District Authority was required to take into account the area zoning

and building plans (Section 12 para. 2).  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.  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 fully justified that the Agricultural District

Authority had suspended its proceedings.

        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 above).

        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.

        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).  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.  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

legally entitled to any financial compensation.

        An appeal against this decision is now pending before the

Provincial Land Reform Board in which the applicants claim that the

compensation parcels assigned to them are less valuable than those

which they contributed.  They allege having suffered a loss of more

than four million AS.

        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.  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.  On 21 February 1986

the Linz Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) 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.

        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.

COMPLAINTS

        The applicants allege violations of Article 6 para. 1 and

Article 14 of the Convention as well as of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

to the Convention.

        The applicants complain of the organisation of the Land

Reform Boards which in their view do not constitute independent and

impartial tribunals within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1.  They

argue that the Boards comprise expert members who have to submit

certain opinions in the course of the proceedings and who nevertheless

subsequently take part in the voting.  Moreover, these expert members

and, indeed, the majority of the Boards are civil servants who outside

their functions in the Boards are subject to instructions of the

Government.

        The applicants further complain under Article 6 para. 1 that

the agricultural proceedings which determined their civil rights were

not conducted within a reasonable time.  The statutory time limit for

issuing the consolidation plan expired in 1981.  The argument used

by the Agricultural District Authority that its proceedings were held

up by the necessity to await the outcome of the area zoning procedure

is not correct.  The local authority undertook in February 1984 not to

change the zoning plan without the agreement of the Agricultural

District Authority.  However, the latter repeatedly asked the local

authority to change the zoning plan, thus unnecessarily delaying the

proceedings.  When the consolidation plan was finally issued in 1986,

it showed a number of deficiencies which had to be raised on appeal.

The end of the proceedings is not foreseeable.

        Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicants allege an

unlawful expropriation of their land without compensation.  As a

result of the fact that the agricultural land which they lost by the

provisional transfer was subsequently designated as a building area

while the land which they obtained was not, they allegedly suffered a

damage of several million AS. Their attempts to be compensated either

in equivalent land or in money were all unsuccessful and the

applicants were simply referred to the final consolidation plan.  The

applicant's temporary damage was increased by the delay until the

consolidation plan was issued.  This plan moreover did not attribute

appropriate compensation parcels to them.  As a consequence they ran

into financial difficulties and were compelled to sell their forest in

order to be able to carry out necessary repair work at the farm

building.

        With regard to their complaint under Article 14 of the

Convention the applicants submit that the increase in value of the

land which they had contributed, which was brought about by its

subsequent reclassification, in fact accrued to other parties.

Moreover, other parties obtained building permits in respect of

certain former parcels of the applicants while the consolidation

proceedings were still pending and while the parcels in question were

still registered in the applicants' name in the official land

register.  The applicants, however, were refused permission to build

on a parcel which had been transferred to them from another party.

PROCEEDINGS

        The application was introduced on 12 August and registered on

8 October 1985.

        On 29 February 1988 the Commission decided to bring the

application to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite

them, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of the Commission's Rules of

Procedure, to submit before 6 May 1988 observations in writing on the

admissibility and merits of the application.  The time-limit was

subsequently extended at the Government's request until 6 June 1988.

        The Government submitted their observations on 26 May 1988 and

the applicants replied thereto on 15 July 1988.

        On 14 October 1988 the Commission decided to grant the

applicants free legal aid.

THE LAW

1.      With regard to the consolidation proceedings by which their

land was affected, the applicants allege several violations of

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.  Insofar as relevant, this

provision 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.  ..."

        The Government do not contest the applicability of this

provision to the proceedings complained of.  The Commission, recalling

the Ettl, Erkner and Hofauer, and Poiss judgments of the Court (Eur.

Court H.R., judgments of 23 April 1987, Series A no. 117:  Ettl p. 16,

para. 32; Erkner and Hofauer p. 60, para. 62; and Poiss p. 102,

para. 48), finds Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) to be applicable.

        The applicants consider the organisation of the agricultural

authorities to be in breach of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1).  In their

submissions the Land Reform Boards are not independent and impartial tribunals

as their majority is constituted of civil servants who, in other functions, are

subject to instructions of the Government, including expert members who submit

opinions in the course of the proceedings and subsequently take part in the

voting.  However, analogous complaints were examined by the Court in the

above-cited Ettl judgment, where it came to the conclusion that, despite the

participation of civil servants and expert members entitled to vote, the Land

Reform Boards satisfied the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) (ibid,

pp. 17-19, paras. 33-41).  For the reasons stated by the Court, the applicants'

complaints in this respect must accordingly be rejected as being manifestly

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

Convention.

2.      The applicants then complain that their civil rights and obligations

have not been determined within a "reasonable time" as required by Article 6

para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.  They submit that the proceedings,

starting on the date of the provisional transfer in October 1978, must be

considered as a whole and therefore have lasted already more than ten years.

        The Government, on the other hand, observe that there were

several proceedings, each with a different object, which should be

examined separately. The applicants did not appeal against the

valuation of the land and the provisional transfer; on the contrary

they expressly declared their consent to these measures.  A first

dispute concerning their civil rights arose on 10 August 1982 when

the applicants requested that their former land be excluded from the

consolidation area, alternatively that they be compensated for the

increase in value following the redesignation of this land. This

dispute was finally determined within three years, three months and

six days (Administrative Court decision of 19 November 1985).  A

further - parallel - dispute arose on 17 January 1984 when the

applicants complained of the delay in the consolidation proceedings,

requesting a transfer of jurisdiction to the higher authority.  This

dispute was finally determined within two years two months and

twenty-four days (Administrative Court decision of 8 April 1986).  A

third dispute arose in the summer of 1985 when the applicants brought

a court action seeking an injunction against construction work on

their former land.  It was determined within about one year (Supreme

Court decision of 19 June 1986).  A fourth dispute is pending since

July 1986 when the applicants lodged an appeal against the

consolidation plan.  In the Government's view none of the periods

involved is excessive.  Even if the above proceedings should be

regarded as a whole, their overall length (more than six years since

August 1982) is justifiable having regard to the extreme complexity of

the matter and the necessity to wait for planning decisions to be

taken in the public interest.

        Although both parties have referred to certain judicial

proceedings, there is no complaint concerning their length.  The

Commission must accordingly limit its examination to the

administrative proceedings before the agricultural authorities.  As

regards these latter proceedings, the Commission notes the

disagreement between the parties as to whether they constitute a

series of separate proceedings to be considered individually, or one

set of continuous proceedings to be considered as a whole.  It further

notes the disagreement between the parties as to the date when a

dispute concerning civil rights first arose and as to whether, in the

determination of this dispute, a reasonable time has been exceeded. In

the light of these submissions of the parties, and having regard to

the Erkner-Hofauer and Poiss judgments of the Court (loc. cit.), the

Commission finds that the applicants' above complaint cannot be

rejected as being manifestly ill-founded as it raises difficult and

complex questions of law and fact whose determination requires an

examination of the merits.

3.      The applicants further complain of a violation of Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention.  This provision 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."

        The applicants submit that there has been an unlawful

expropriation of their land without compensation:  after the

redesignation of their former land they could neither secure the

exclusion of this land from the consolidation area, nor the allotment

of the same or equivalent land, nor a financial compensation.

        The Government submit in reply that the applicants had

consented to the provisional transfer of their agricultural land to

other parties and that they received equivalent agricultural land in

exchange as their provisional property.  After the increase in value

of their former land brought about by its redesignation as building

land, the applicants had a right under Austrian law to receive

equivalent land of special value.  Insofar as the compensation parcels

due to them have not yet been finally determined, the applicants have

not yet exhausted the domestic remedies as their appeal against the

consolidation plan of July 1986 is still pending.  Insofar as the

applicants complain of an interference with their property rights

pending the final decision on the consolidation plan, the Government

observe that the situation is different from the Erkner-Hofauer and

Poiss cases (loc. cit.) as the applicants essentially complain of the

effects of the redesignation of their former land brought about after

the provisional transfer at the request of the new owners.  The

applicants could also have asked for a redesignation of the land

provisionally assigned to them.  In the Government's view the

applicants cannot claim to be victims of an interference with their

property rights within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1),

as this provision does not give them any right to profit from the

increase in value of land which they have already given up.  Even if

an interference with the applicants' property rights could be assumed,

it would be of a temporary nature and not disproportionate, contrary

to the requirements of the first sentence of the first paragraph or

the second paragraph of Article 1 (Art. 1).

        The Commission, agreeing with the Government, finds that the

domestic remedies have not been exhausted as regards the compensation

due to the applicants in the consolidation plan.  As regards the

question whether there has been an unjustified interference with the

applicants' property rights pending the final adoption of this plan,

the Commission, having considered the parties' arguments and the

Erkner-Hofauer and Poiss judgments of the Court (loc. cit.), finds

that the applicants' above complaint cannot be rejected as being

manifestly ill-founded as it raises difficult and complex questions of

law and fact whose determination requires an examination of the

merits.

4.      The applicants finally complain that they have been discriminated

against, contrary to Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention.  This provision

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."

        The applicants submit that there has been discrimination, as

regards the enjoyment of their property rights within the meaning of

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention, in that they were

treated less favourably than the new 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.

        The Government submit that the applicants have failed to

invoke the principle of equality in their complaints to the

Constitutional Court and thus have not exhausted the domestic

remedies, and that, in any case, they have failed to substantiate

their complaint.

        The Commission notes the applicants' argument that they tried

to secure equal treatment with the new owners by their applications to

the agricultural authorities and by the action which they lodged with

the civil courts.  The Commission finds that the applicants' complaint

of discrimination is so closely linked to the issue under Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) that it cannot be separated.  This part of the

application must therefore also be reserved for an examination of the

merits.

        For these reasons, the Commission

1.      DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the applicants' complaint that the

        organisation of the agricultural authorities was not

        in conformity with the requirements of Article 6 para. 1

        (Art. 6-1) of the Convention;

2.      DECLARES ADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application,

        without prejudging the merits of the case.

Secretary to the Commission               President of the Commission

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