F.M. ZUMTOBEL Gesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, Franz Martin ZUMTOBEL & Hans PRAMSTALLER v. AUSTRIA



AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 17196/90

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

Franz Martin ZUMTOBEL & Hans PRAMSTALLER

against Austria

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 10 February 1993, the following members being present:

MM. S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H. G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

MM. F. MARTINEZ

J.-C. GEUS

Mr. K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Second 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 24 July 1990 by

F.M. ZUMTOBEL Gesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, Franz Martin ZUMTOBEL and Hans

PRAMSTALLER against Austria and registered on 25 September 1990 under

file No. 17196/90;

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 first applicant is a private company incorporated under

Austrian law. The second applicant, an Austrian citizen residing in

Dornbirn, is the general partner and manager of the first applicant.

The third applicant is the owner of real property which he let to the

first and second applicant for business purposes. Before the Commission

the applicants are represented by Wilfried Ludwig Weh, a lawyer

practising in Bregenz.

Particular circumstances of the case

On 17 March 1987 the Mayor of Nußdorf-Debant granted a permit to

build two shops of approximately 360 square metres each to the third

applicant as owner of the land.

On 20 November 1987, after the construction works had been

terminated, the third applicant applied for a subsequent partial

modification of the building permit, which now should cover one big

sales-room of approximately 661 square metres.

On 7 June 1988 the Mayor refused the modification of the building

permit on the ground that the modification was contrary to Section 16b

of the Tyrol Regional Planning Act (Raumordnungsgesetz). By the same

decision the third applicant was ordered to erect the missing partition

wall between the two sales-rooms before 7 July 1988.

On 20 June 1988 the third applicant lodged an appeal with the

Local Council (Gemeinderat), which on 16 August 1988 dismissed the

applicant's appeal.

In its decision the Council found in particular that the

requested modification would lead to a shopping centre which could not

be erected on the applicant's land, as this was not designated as a

special area for shopping centres (Sonderfläche für Einkaufszentren).

On 15 September 1988 the Tyrolean Provincial Government

(Landesregierung) dismissed a further appeal finding that the requested

modification was contrary to the area zoning plan.

On 29 October 1988 the third applicant lodged a complaint with

the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). He submitted that

the decision violated his freedom of commerce (Erwerbsfreiheit) and

Article 6 of the Convention. He also contended that its legal basis

(Section 16b of the Tyrolean Regional Planning Act) was contrary to the

distribution of legislative powers (Art. 10 - 15 of the Federal

Constitution) and to the principle of equality.

On 28 November 1988 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with

the complaint for lack of prospect of success and referred the case to

the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof).

On 9 November 1989 the Administrative Court dismissed the third

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

a shopping centre had in fact been constructed, for which there was no

special designation. Therefore the authorities had to refuse the

building request as it was contrary to the area zoning plan.

Relevant domestic law and practice

I. Building legislation

According to Section 31 of the Tyrolean Building Regulations

(Bauordnung) as in force at the relevant time the authority had to

decide on a building request by a written decision. Paragraph 3 of

Section 31 stated:

[Translation]

"A building request is to be refused without an oral

hearing, if already the request or the documents reveal

that the project is contrary to the area zoning plan, the

building development plan or to local building provisions

(Section 20 of the Tyrolean Regional Planning Act) or if a

building prohibition under Section 29 of the Tyrolean

Regional Planning Act precludes the project."

[German]

"Ein Bauansuchen ist ohne Durchführung einer mündlichen

Verhandlung abzuweisen, wenn sich bereits aus dem Ansuchen

bzw. den Unterlagen ergibt, daß das Bauvorhaben dem

Flächenwidmungsplan, dem Bebauungsplan oder örtlichen

Bauvorschriften (§ 20 des Tiroler Raumordnungsgesetzes)

widerspricht oder wenn dem Bauvorhaben eine Bausperre nach

§ 29 des Tiroler Raumordnungsgesetzes entgegensteht."

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 building permit at issue was governed by Tyrolean law.

In order to achieve the goals of the regional land planning laid

down in Section 1 of the Tyrolean Regional Planning Act the Provincial

Government (Landesregierung) has to issue development programmes

(Entwicklungsprogramme) (Section 4).

The local land planning is carried out by the communities which

issue area zoning plans (Flächenwidmungspläne) that designate the land

as building land (Bauland), undeveloped land (Freiland) or main traffic

areas (Hauptverkehrsflächen).

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

development programme. Section 16b of the Regional Planning Act

provides for "special areas for shopping centres" (Sonderflächen für

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

follows:

[Translation]

"(1) Shopping centres within the meaning of this Act are

buildings with sale-rooms of a total effective area of more than

400 m², in communities with more than 10,000 inhabitants

according to the last census of a total effective area of more

than 800 m², in which especially articles of everyday use, at any

rate food, are offered. ...

(2) The building permit for the construction of a shopping

centre may only be granted if this building will be erected

on land which is designated as a special area for shopping

centres and if the total effective sales-room area planned

in this building does not exceed the maximum prescribed by

the area zoning plan. ...

(3) Special areas for shopping centres may only be

designated in a building area and only in so far as a

development programme provides that a use of land

corresponding to this designation is admissible in a

particular community. ..."

[German]

"(1) Im Sinne dieses Gesetzes sind Einkaufszentren Gebäude

mit Verkaufsräumen von insgesamt mehr als 400 m²

Nutzfläche, in Gemeinden, die nach dem Ergebnis der jeweils

letzten Volkszählung mehr als 10.000 Einwohner haben, von

insgesamt mehr als 800 m² Nutzfläche, in denen insbesondere

auch Waren des täglichen Bedarfes, jedenfalls Lebensmittel,

angeboten werden. ...

(2) Die Baubewilligung für die Errichtung eines

Einkaufszentrums darf nur erteilt werden, wenn dieses

Gebäude auf einer Grundfläche, die als Sonderfläche für

Einkaufszentren gewidmet ist, errichtet wird und die

Nutzfläche der in diesem Gebäude vorgesehenen Verkaufsräume

insgesamt das im Flächenwidmungsplan festgesetzte

Höchstausmaß nicht übersteigt. ...

(3) Sonderflächen für Einkaufszentren dürfen nur im Bauland

und nur insoweit gewidmet werden, als in einem

Entwicklungsprogramm bestimmt ist, daß eine dieser Widmung

entsprechende Verwendung von Grundflächen in der

betreffenden Gemeinde zulässig ist. ..."

Both the development programme and the area zoning plan 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

development programme 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 in

regard 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

(Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz) 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

(Verwaltungsgerichtshofgesetz) 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 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

development programme 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 16b of the Tyrolean Regional

Planning Act constitutes 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

..., 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 development programme.

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 development

programme 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 development

programme only concerns the competence of that community to designate

land for particular purposes.

The Commission therefore concludes that the question whether a

development programme 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 they had a right in general

to build on their land.

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

their land and to use their building, 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. 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 Mayor,

the Local Council and the Provincial Government 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 Austrian 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, and there was no need

therefore for a judicial determination thereof. In particular it was

not in dispute that the effected construction deviated from the

building permit. Rather the decisive and disputed 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

examine this question.

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 16b of the Tyrolean 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 16b of the above-mentioned law made the

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

issue of a development programme.

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).

The Commission further 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.

Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber

(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)