BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

European Court of Human Rights


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> ZUMTOBEL v. AUSTRIA - 12235/86 [1993] ECHR 41 (21 September 1993)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1993/41.html
Cite as: [1993] ECHR 41, (1994) 17 EHRR 116, 17 EHRR 116

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable version] [Help]


In the case of Zumtobel v. Austria*,

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance

with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention")** and the relevant

provisions of the Rules of Court, as a Chamber composed of the

following judges:

Mr R. Ryssdal, President,

Mr R. Bernhardt,

Mr F. Matscher,

Mr A. Spielmann,

Mr N. Valticos,

Mr R. Pekkanen,

Mr F. Bigi,

Mr M.A. Lopes Rocha,

Mr J. Makarczyk,

and also of Mr M.-A. Eissen, Registrar, and Mr H. Petzold, Deputy

Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 26 March and 24 August 1993,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the

last-mentioned date:

_______________

Notes by the Registrar

* The case is numbered 28/1992/373/447. The first number is the case's

position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant

year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the case's

position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation

and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the

Commission.

** As amended by Article 11 of Protocol No. 8 (P8-11), which came into

force on 1 January 1990.

_______________

PROCEDURE

1. The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission

of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 1 September 1992, within the

three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47

(art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated in an

application (no. 12235/86) against the Republic of Austria lodged with

the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by the firm of F.M. Zumtobel,

a commercial partnership under Austrian law, and its manager,

Mr Martin Zumtobel, an Austrian national, on 10 June 1986.

The Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48

(art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby Austria recognised

the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46). The

object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts

of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its

obligations under Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).

2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with

Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicants stated that

they wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer

who would represent them (Rule 30) and who was given leave by the

President to use the German language (Rule 27 para. 3).

3. The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio

Mr F. Matscher, the elected judge of Austrian nationality (Article 43

of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the

Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b)). On 26 September 1992, in the presence of

the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the other seven

members, namely Mr R. Bernhardt, Mr A. Spielmann, Mr N. Valticos,

Mr R. Pekkanen, Mr F. Bigi, Mr M.A. Lopes Rocha and Mr J. Makarczyk

(Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43).

4. As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 5), Mr Ryssdal,

acting through the Deputy Registrar, consulted the Agent of the

Austrian Government ("the Government"), the applicants' lawyer and the

Delegate of the Commission on the organisation of the proceedings

(Rules 37 para. 1 and 38). Pursuant to the order made in consequence,

the Registrar received the Government's memorial on 18 January 1993 and

the applicants' memorial on 22 January. On 9 March the Commission

produced various documents, as requested by the Registrar on the

President's instructions. On 21 April, 7 May and 23 June the Registrar

received other documents from the applicants and the Government; the

Court agreed to their inclusion in the file (Rule 37 para. 1, second

sub-paragraph).

5. In accordance with the President's decision, the hearing took

place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on

23 March 1993. The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand.

There appeared before the Court:

(a) for the Government

Mr W. Okresek, Federal Chancellery, Agent,

Mr F. Haug, Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Adviser;

(b) for the Commission

Mr Gaukur Jörundsson, Delegate;

(c) for the applicants

Mr W.L. Weh, Rechtsanwalt, Counsel.

The Court heard addresses by them and also their replies to

its questions.

AS TO THE FACTS

I. The particular circumstances of the case

6. The firm of F.M. Zumtobel, which at the material time was a

limited partnership (Kommanditgesellschaft) and was subsequently

converted into a limited company (Gesellschaft mit beschränkter

Haftung), is based in Dornbirn, Austria. Mr Zumtobel was its manager

and sole shareholder.

7. The case concerns expropriation proceedings instituted with

a view to the construction in the province of Vorarlberg of a

provincial highway, the L 52, intended as a bypass for part of the

municipality of Rankweil. It appears that the scheme in question dated

back to 1960, but that opposition from local landowners had prevented

its realisation.

The authorities conducted an investigation into inter alia

whether the projected road was compatible with the requirements of

environmental protection (Landschaftsschutz). The proposed route was

published (zur öffentlichen Einsichtnahme aufgelegt) and the file made

available for consultation at the Rankweil council offices from 1 to

31 October 1984.

8. Pursuant to the Provincial Highways Law (Landesstraßengesetz),

on the initiative of the Highways Authority of the Provincial

Government (Landesstraßenverwaltung), expropriation proceedings

relating to a parcel of land of 2,140m2 belonging to the Zumtobel

partnership were opened on 28 February 1985. The expropriation would

have had the effect of dividing the first applicant's property, which

covered an area of some 55,000m2, into two parcels of approximately

20,000m2 and 30,000m2.

The authorities consulted several experts. The first

applicant repeatedly but unsuccessfully requested to be allowed to

study various documents in the file, namely a report of the Court of

Audit (Rechnungshof), an expert report on the environmental

implications, the decision taken by the local authorities of Feldkirch,

Meiningen and Rankweil on the proposed section of the road, and an

opinion of the environmental department of the Provincial Government.

9. On 25 June 1985 a hearing took place before the Office of the

Provincial Government (Amt der Landesregierung), attended by its

chairman, the first applicant's lawyer, and three of its official

experts (Amtssachverständige), specialising in environmental

protection, highways and road traffic respectively. They submitted

their reports and made additional observations. According to the

highways expert and the road traffic expert, the proposed section of

highway was important because it would improve traffic links between

Rankweil and Feldkirch, which went through densely populated built-up

areas.

10. On 13 February 1986 the Office made an order for expropriation

and fixed compensation at 620 schillings per square metre. At the same

time it dismissed two requests by the first applicant, one for full

details of the planning procedure for the L 52, and the other for the

appointment of an independent road traffic expert to assess whether the

planned road was necessary. The Office considered the first request

to be irrelevant to the case; as to the second, it stated that the

official expert had not shown any bias in favour of the authorities and

had submitted a convincing report.

11. The Zumtobel partnership thereupon applied to the

Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). It claimed that the

expropriation proceedings, which were subject to final review by the

Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) and the Constitutional

Court, had violated its right of access to a court with full

jurisdiction, guaranteed inter alia by Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of

the Convention. It also alleged that there had been a breach of the

principle of equality of arms, as the Office had heard its own experts

but refused to consult independent ones.

12. On 27 November 1987, at the conclusion of a hearing held in

private (Article 144 para. 2 of the Federal Constitution, Bundes-

Verfassungsgesetz), the Constitutional Court decided not to entertain

the application since, in view of its case-law on Article 6 (art. 6)

of the Convention and the authorities' discretion in determining the

routes of highways, the application did not have sufficient prospects

of success. Moreover, the alleged violations resulted at the most from

the erroneous application of an ordinary law (einfaches Gesetz) and

their examination did not involve any constitutional considerations.

Finally, the case did not fall outside the Administrative Court's

jurisdiction.

13. The first applicant also challenged the decision of

13 February 1986 (see paragraph 10 above) in the Administrative Court.

Relying on substantially the same arguments as in the Constitutional

Court, it now complained of breaches of procedural and substantive law;

it also asked for an expert to be appointed.

14. The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal on

22 September 1989, after a purely written procedure; the applicants had

not asked it to hold a hearing (see paragraph 20 below).

In the court's opinion, the complaint that the scheme objected

to was not based on any reasonable overall plan was not enough to

establish that the contested decision had been unlawful. The court

added as follows:

"In the context of the power of review conferred on it by

Article 41 of the Administrative Court Law

(Verwaltungsgerichtshofgesetz), the Administrative Court

cannot hold to be unlawful the fact that the respondent

authority had regard to road traffic requirements and based

its decision principally on the consideration that no other

more appropriate solution - than the construction of the

proposed section of the L 52 over the land in issue - was

possible. As can be seen from the findings of fact in the

contested decision, the respondent authority took the view

that it was in the interests of road users to divert through-

traffic from the Rankweil-Brederis built-up area, which at

the same time would create a useful addition to the existing

road network in the Feldkirch-Rankweil area."

The court held that the applicant partnership had also failed

to cast doubt on the official experts' reports such as could disclose

a procedural irregularity capable of affecting the decision. The fact

that the Government Office had not made the commencement of

construction work for the L 52 subject to a final decision on the

length of the route was not incompatible with the Provincial Highways

Law. Contrary to the applicant partnership's arguments, the Office had

indeed taken environmental protection into account when assessing the

various relevant interests. The commencement of expropriation

proceedings before the adoption of a decree (Einreihungsverordnung)

defining inter alia the route and length of the highway and the failure

to consult the association of local authorities (Gemeindeverband) of

Vorarlberg did not vitiate the impugned decision either. As for

compensation in kind (Naturalersatz) or an exchange of land

(Tauschanbot), the documents in the case showed that these had not been

available as alternative solutions. Finally, the fact that notice of

the hearing of 25 June 1985 (see paragraph 9 above) had not been given

in the Official Gazette (Amtsblatt) could not have infringed the

applicant partnership's rights, as it had been directly notified of the

hearing.

The court also rejected the complaints relating to the hearing

of the official experts. It noted to begin with that the Office was

obliged to consult them, under the General Administrative Procedure Law

of 1950 (Allgemeines Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz, "the 1950 Law"). The

court considered that mere general remarks on the independence of

official experts were not enough to prove a specific legitimate doubt

for the purposes of Article 7 (1), sub-paragraph 4, of the 1950 Law.

The fact that such an expert took part in proceedings to which the

Province was a party did not, unless there were special circumstances,

constitute a serious reason within the meaning of the 1950 Law to doubt

his complete impartiality. In the absence of any formal requirement,

there was nothing to prevent a written record being made of an orally

delivered expert report, without the expert having to supplement it in

writing. Nor had the authorities been obliged to summon the parties

to attend the inquiry (Beweisverfahren).

With reference to the complaints of lack of access to the case

file, the court stated that it could not find that the Office had

disregarded procedural rules, compliance with which could have led to

a different decision. As the applicant partnership had not been a

party to the environmental protection proceedings

(Landschaftsschutzverfahren), it could not claim a right of access to

that file. As to the Court of Audit's report, the observations of the

department for planning and the environment (Raumplanungs- bzw.

Umweltabteilung) and those of the relevant local authorities, there was

nothing to show that these documents could have been material to the

applicant partnership's case or that the Office had based its decision

on them. The report of expert B. had been included in the

expropriation proceedings file but, contrary to the applicant

partnership's arguments, the authorities were not obliged by law to

supply photocopies of the entire case file or of certain documents in

it.

The Administrative Court also found that there had been no

breach of Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention and declined to refer

the matter to the Constitutional Court.

With regard to the request for an independent expert to be

appointed to report inter alia on "the economic viability, the

reasonableness and hence the lawfulness" of the proposed route of the

L 52, the court cited a judgment given by an enlarged chamber in 1978

and stated:

"[That judgment shows that] the Administrative Court is not

allowed, in a case which has been before the respondent

administrative authority, to put itself in the place of that

authority and take evidence, which the latter may have

omitted to take, or to supplement the investigation by itself

taking investigative measures to establish the facts. The

Administrative Court can, however, take evidence in order to

determine whether an essential procedural requirement has

been breached, and it is therefore entitled to take

investigative measures in order to establish whether a

procedural defect is essential or whether the respondent

authority could have reached a different decision if that

procedural defect had been avoided; it can also do so for the

purpose of reviewing the assessment of the evidence. In view

of the above findings with reference to the weighing up by

the respondent authority of the interests at stake and the

facts on which its decision was based, however, the

Administrative Court sees no reason to order the

investigative measure sought."

15. The first applicant had meanwhile applied to the Feldkirch

District Court (Bezirksgericht) to determine the amount of

compensation. On 17 December 1987 this was set at 9,963,032.50

Austrian schillings (ATS).

On 28 May 1988, on appeal (Rekurs) to the Feldkirch Regional

Court (Landesgericht), the amount was reduced to ATS 4,560,000. On

6 October 1988 the first applicant's appeal on points of law

(Revisionsrekurs) against this decision was dismissed by the Supreme

Court (Oberster Gerichtshof).

II. Relevant domestic law

A. Expropriation for highway construction

16. In Vorarlberg expropriation for the purpose of construction

of a provincial highway can take place only after the Provincial

Government has issued a decree giving a brief description of the route

of the highway and stating its approximate length (Article 5 of the

Provincial Highways Law). Landowners who are affected by the measure

can, once the plan has been made public, contest its appropriateness

before the administrative authorities, and then challenge the decree

in the Constitutional Court.

Such an expropriation is permissible only if it is not

possible to construct or retain a section of highway which is more

suitable from the point of view of traffic requirements, environmental

protection and the financial implications (Article 44 (1)).

B. Appeals to the Constitutional Court

17. On an application (Beschwerde) the Constitutional Court will

determine whether an administrative decision (Bescheid) has infringed

a right guaranteed to the applicant under the Constitution or whether

the decision applied a decree (Verordnung) contrary to the law, a law

contrary to the Constitution or an international treaty incompatible

with Austrian law (Article 144 para. 1 of the Federal Constitution).

C. Applications to the Administrative Court

18. Under Article 130 of the Federal Constitution, the

Administrative Court has jurisdiction to hear inter alia applications

alleging that an administrative decision is unlawful.

19. Article 41 (1) of the Administrative Court Law

(Verwaltungsgerichtshofgesetz) reads as follows:

"In so far as the Administrative Court does not find any

unlawfulness deriving from the respondent authority's lack of

jurisdiction or from breaches of procedural rules

(Article 42 (2), sub-paragraphs 2 and 3) ..., it must examine

the contested decision on the basis of the facts found by the

respondent authority and with reference to the complaints put

forward ... If it considers that reasons which have not yet

been notified to one of the parties might be decisive for

ruling on [one of these complaints] ..., it must hear the

parties on this point and adjourn the proceedings if

necessary."

Under Article 42 (2) of the Law,

"The Administrative Court shall quash the impugned

decision:

1. if it is unlawful by reason of its content,

2. [or] because the respondent authority lacked jurisdiction,

3. [or] on account of a breach of procedural rules, in that

(a) the respondent authority has made findings of

fact which are, in an important respect, contradicted by the

case file, or

(b) the facts require further investigation on an

important point, or

(c) procedural rules have been disregarded,

compliance with which could have led to a different decision

by the respondent authority."

20. Proceedings in the Administrative Court consist essentially

of an exchange of written pleadings (Article 36). If one of the

parties so requests the Administrative Court may hold an adversarial

hearing which in principle is held in public (Articles 39 and 40).

21. If the court quashes the challenged decision, "the

administrative authorities are under a duty ... to take immediate

steps, using the legal means available to them, to bring about in the

specific case the legal situation which corresponds to the

Administrative Court's view of the law (Rechtsansicht)"

(Article 63 (1)).

D. Experts

22. If an expert opinion proves necessary in expropriation

proceedings, the authority consults, in accordance with Article 52 (1)

of the General Administrative Procedure Law (see paragraph 14 above),

"the official experts attached to the authority or placed at its

disposal". Under Article 53 in conjunction with Article 7 of that law,

such experts must stand down "if there are ... serious reasons liable

to give rise to doubts as to their complete impartiality".

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

23. The applicants applied to the Commission on 10 June 1986.

They alleged that in the expropriation proceedings they had not had

access to a court with full jurisdiction, as required by

Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention. They also complained

of an infringement of their property rights, the refusal of the

Administrative and Constitutional Courts to accord suspensive effect

to the applications brought before them and the impossibility of

bringing an administrative appeal against the expropriation decision;

they relied on Articles 6 para. 1, 13 and 14 (art. 6-1, art. 13,

art. 14) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

24. On 15 October 1991 the Commission declared the application

(no. 12235/86) admissible with respect to the complaint under

Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) and inadmissible for the remainder. In

its report of 30 June 1992 (made under Article 31) (art. 31) it

expressed the opinion, by different majorities on the various points

in issue, that there had not been a violation of Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1). The full text of the Commission's opinion and of the two

separate opinions contained in the report is reproduced as an annex to

this judgment*.

_______________

* Note by the Registrar: for practical reasons this annex will appear

only with the printed version of the judgment (volume 268-A of Series

A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the Commission's

report is available from the registry.

_______________

GOVERNMENT'S FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT

25. The Government asked the Court "to hold that there had not

been a breach of Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention in the

expropriation proceedings in issue".

AS TO THE LAW

26. The applicants complained of a breach of Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1), which is worded as follows:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations

..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by

[a] ... tribunal ..."

Their complaints concerned their right of access to a court

with full jurisdiction, the lack of a hearing in the Administrative

Court, the position of the experts consulted by the Office of the

Provincial Government and the refusal of that Office to communicate

various documents to them.

I. The right of access to a court

27. According to the applicants, none of the authorities before

which their case came in the contested proceedings could be regarded

as a "tribunal" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).

This was so, in the first place, with regard to the Office, an organ

of the Provincial Government. It was also true of the Constitutional

Court, as it was prohibited by law from reconsidering all the facts of

a case. The Administrative Court was bound by the findings of the

authorities, except in borderline cases - not the position here - in

which such findings were material to determining the effect of an

alleged procedural defect; even in those cases, the Administrative

Court could not correct or supplement the facts, or rule in the

relevant authority's stead, but had always to remit the file to the

latter. In short, its review only concerned the question of lawfulness

and could not be considered equivalent to a full review.

28. In the Government's contention, the powers of the

Administrative Court are as wide as those required by Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1) in disputes which, as in this case, are between an

individual and the public authorities. They enabled the court to

enquire into almost all the shortcomings in the way in which the facts

were presented. Admittedly it fell to the relevant authority to make

good those shortcomings, but under Article 63 (1) of the Administrative

Court Law (see paragraph 21 above) it was required to conform

immediately to the opinion expressed by that court. The fact that in

the Zumtobel case the Administrative Court had decided not to pursue

this course of action did not prove that it had been bound by the

findings of the regional officials, but that those findings had not

needed correction by it.

The Commission essentially agreed with this view.

29. The Court notes in the first place that none of the

participants in the proceedings argued that the Office of the

Government constituted a tribunal for the purposes of Article 6

para. 1 (art. 6-1). Its decisions may give rise to appeals to the

Constitutional Court and the Administrative Court, but the proceedings

for the consideration of such appeals will be consistent with Article

6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) only if conducted before "judicial bodies that

have full jurisdiction" (see the Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium

judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, p. 16, para. 29).

30. The Constitutional Court does not satisfy that requirement.

In this instance it could inquire into the contested proceedings only

from the point of view of their conformity with the Constitution,

which, on the Government's own admission, did not make it possible for

it to examine all the relevant facts. The Constitutional Court did not

therefore have the power required under Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).

31. As regards the review effected by the Administrative Court,

its scope must be assessed in the light of the fact that expropriation

- the participants in the proceedings all recognise this - is not a

matter exclusively within the discretion of the administrative

authorities, because Article 44 para. 1 of the Provincial Highways Law

makes the lawfulness of such a measure subject to a condition: the

impossibility "of constructing or retaining a section of highway which

is more suitable from the point of view of traffic requirements,

environmental protection and the financial implications" (see

paragraph 16 above). It was for the Administrative Court to satisfy

itself that this provision had been complied with. In this respect the

present dispute may be distinguished from the Obermeier v. Austria case

(judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A no. 179, p. 23, para. 70).

32. In addition, it should be stressed that the submissions relied

upon before the Administrative Court concerned solely the proceedings

before the Government Office. The Administrative Court in fact

considered these submissions on their merits, point by point, without

ever having to decline jurisdiction in replying to them or in

ascertaining various facts. The European Court should confine itself

as far as possible to examining the question raised by the case before

it. Accordingly, it should only decide whether, in the circumstances

of the case, the scope of the competence of the Administrative Court

satisfied the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).

Regard being had to the respect which must be accorded to

decisions taken by the administrative authorities on grounds of

expediency and to the nature of the complaints made by the Zumtobel

partnership, the review by the Administrative Court accordingly, in

this instance, fulfilled the requirements of Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1).

II. The lack of a hearing in the Administrative Court

33. The applicants further complained that the Administrative

Court, the sole judicial body to rule in this case, had not held a

hearing.

34. The practice of the Austrian Administrative Court is not to

hear the parties unless one of them expressly requests it to do so (see

paragraph 20 above). As in this case no such request was made by the

lawyer of the Zumtobel partnership, it must be deemed to have waived

unequivocally its right to a hearing; moreover, their dispute did not

give rise to questions of public interest making such a hearing

necessary (see, as the most recent authority, the Schuler-Zgraggen v.

Switzerland judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, pp. 19-20,

para. 58).

Accordingly, there has been no breach of the requirements of

Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) concerning the public character of court

hearings.

III. Other complaints

35. The applicants criticised in addition the lack of independence

of the experts consulted by the regional authorities and the failure

to communicate several documents from the file (see paragraphs 8-9

above).

The Court observes that these complaints, which relate to the

proceedings before the Government Office, were examined and rejected

by the Administrative Court under a procedure which in this instance

was in conformity with Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) (see paragraphs 14

and 32 above; see, mutatis mutandis, the Le Compte, Van Leuven and De

Meyere v. Belgium judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, pp. 24-26,

paras. 54-60; the Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium judgment, cited

above, Series A no. 58, p. 19, para. 36; and the Belilos v. Switzerland

judgment of 29 April 1988, Series A no. 132, pp. 31-32, para. 72).

IV. Conclusion

36. No violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) has been

established.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

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

(art. 6-1).

Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public

hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 21 September 1993.

Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL

President

Signed: Marc-André EISSEN

Registrar



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1993/41.html