Search
document

Document text Analytics

FIRMA F.M. ZUMTOBEL AND MARTIN ZUMTOBEL v. AUSTRIACONCURRING OPINION OF Sir BASIL HALL

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: June 30, 1992

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

FIRMA F.M. ZUMTOBEL AND MARTIN ZUMTOBEL v. AUSTRIACONCURRING OPINION OF Sir BASIL HALL

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: June 30, 1992

Cited paragraphs only

CONCURRING OPINION OF Sir BASIL HALL

I agree with the conclusion of the majority of the Commission

that there has been no violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

on account of the alleged lack of access to a tribunal within the

meaning of this provision. I have, however, an additional reason for

coming to this conclusion. I do not think that Article 6 para. 1

requires that a court shall be able to substitute its judgment for that

of the administrative authorities when these authorities have made a

policy decision of a general kind, even if that decision might when

excecuted have an effect on individual property rights. If that were

so, each person through whose land a projected new road - even a

motorway - was to pass would be able to apply to a court on the basis

that the policy decision to construct the road was wrong, and the court

should examine whether there was a need for the road.

In this case in his application to the Administrative Court,

while purporting to rest his case on procedural error, the applicant

is in reality challenging the basic policy decision to construct a

road. That to my mind falls outside the ambit of Article 6 para. 1.

APPENDIX I

HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS

Date Item

_________________________________________________________________

10 June 1986 Introduction of the application

13 June 1986 Registration of the application

Examination of admissibility

6 March 1989 Commission's decision to adjourn

further examination of the

admissibility of the application until

the Administrative Court had given its

decision

2 April 1990 Commission's decision to invite the

Government to submit observations on

the admissibility and merits of the

application

23 July 1990 Government's observations

11 October 1990 Applicant's observations in reply

29 May 1991 Commission's decision to hold an oral

hearing

15 October 1991 Oral hearing on admissibility and

merits, Commission's decision to declare

the application in part admissible and

in part inadmissible

Examination of the merits

15 February 1992 Commission's consideration of the

state of proceedings

30 June 1992 Commission's deliberations on the

merits, final vote and adoption of

the Report

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant